ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 129279 March 4, 2003 - ALFREDO M. OUANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1383 March 5, 2003 - PERLITA AVANCENA v. RICARDO P. LIWANAG

  • G.R. No. 127827 March 5, 2003 - ELEUTERIO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131516 March 5, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RONNIE RULLEPA

  • G.R. No. 131636 March 5, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO INVENCION

  • G.R. No. 138193 March 5, 2003 - OSM SHIPPING PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139906 March 5, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTHONY A. MANGUERA

  • G.R. No. 143464 March 5, 2003 - EMILIO S. YOUNG v. JOHN KENG SENG

  • G.R. No. 149382-149383 March 5, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO B. BODOSO

  • A.C. No. 4921 March 6, 2003 - CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE v. ALFREDO CASTILLO

  • A.M. No. P-02-1540 March 6, 2003 - EULOGIO B. GUEVARRA v. VICENTE S. SICAT

  • G.R. No. 134121 March 6, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE. PHIL. v. EDWIN ALCODIA

  • A.C. No. 1558 March 10, 2003 - HONORIO MANALANG, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO F. ANGELES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1625 March 10, 2003 - JOSELITO S. PASCUAL v. RODOLFO R. BONIFACIO

  • G.R. No. 116652 March 10, 2003 - NINOY AQUINO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138280 March 10, 2003 - LEON REQUIRON v. PATRICIA SINABAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148030 March 10, 2003 - EXECUTIVE LABOR ARBITER RICARDO N. OLAIREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5925 March 11, 2003 - RUBY MAE BARNACHEA v. ATTY. EDWIN T. QUIOCHO

  • A.M. No. P-94-1054 March 11, 2003 - EDWIN A. ACEBEDO v. EDDIE P. ARQUERO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1646 March 11, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. FRANCISCO C. JOVEN

  • G.R. No. 129201 March 11, 2003 - REYNALDO CRISTE UNIDAD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144294 March 11, 2003 - SOLEDAD CHANLIONGCO RAMOS, ET AL. v. TERESITA D. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130325 March 12, 2003 - RAMON T. LIM v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • A.M. No. 02-8-471-RTC March 14, 2003 - RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT REPORT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC, BR. 17, KIDAPAWAN CITY

  • G.R. No. 126028 March 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EXPEDITO ALFON

  • G.R. No. 126711 March 14, 2003 - CARLOS SUPER DRUG CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128646 March 14, 2003 - CRISELDA F. JOSE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129306 March 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES M. PATANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133994-95 March 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BACALING

  • G.R. Nos. 140786-88 March 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO MAURO

  • G.R. No. 142011 March 14, 2003 - ALFONSO C. CHOA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145505 March 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 149416 March 14, 2003 - CARMELITA V. SANTOS v. SAN MIGUEL CORP.

  • G.R. Nos. 149872-73 March 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSDIA S. HAJILI

  • G.R. No. 150843 March 14, 2003 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. SPS DANIEL and MARIA LUISA VAZQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 154499 March 14, 2003 - ALBERTO V. REYES, ET AL. v. RURAL BANK OF SAN MIGUEL

  • A.C. No. 5305 March 17, 2003 - MARCIANO P. BRION, JR. v. FRANCISCO F. BRILLANTES, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1607 March 17, 2003 - ELSIE U. MAMACLAY v. JOEL FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 122150 March 17, 2003 - GEORGE (CULHI) HAMBON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1704 March 18, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. TOMAS B. NOYNAY

  • G.R. No. 128871 March 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY RUBISO

  • G.R. No. 141530 March 18, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142749 March 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO C. GAVINO

  • A.C. No. 5162 March 20, 2003 - EMILIANO COURT TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASS’N.. v. MICHAEL DIONEDA

  • A.C. No. 4763 March 20, 2003 - GIL Y. GAMILLA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO J. MARIÑO JR.

  • A.C. No. 5246 March 20, 2003 - EDGAR O. PEREA v. RUBEN ALMADRO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1492 March 20, 2003 - RENATO MIGUEL D. GARCIA v. PERSHING T. YARED

  • A.M. No. P-03-1685 March 20, 2003 - MONICA A. VILLASEÑOR v. PATRICIA S.J. DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 115966 March 20, 2003 - JUANA ALMIRA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124611 March 20, 2003 - WENONAH L. MARQUEZ-AZARCON v. CHARITO BUNAGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143275 March 20, 2003 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. ARLENE DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144156 March 20, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAQUITO ROMERO

  • G.R. No. 145995 March 20, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SATURNINO J. ILUIS

  • G.R. No. 148568 March 20, 2003 - ATLANTIC ERECTORS v. HERBAL COVE REALTY CORPORATION

  • A.C. No. 5081 March 24, 2003 - EMILIANA M. EUSTAQUIO, ET AL. v. ATTY. REX C. RIMORIN

  • G.R. No. 121943 March 24, 2003 - CHINA BANKING CORP. v. SPS. OSCAR and LOLITA ORDINARIO

  • G.R. No. 153881 March 24, 2003 - ELPIDIO G. SORIANO III v. REUBEN S. LISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143867 March 25, 2003 - PLDT v. CITY OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1534 March 26, 2003 - OSCAR S. AQUINO v. RICARDO C. OLIVARES

  • A.M. No. P-98-1275 March 26, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. EDGARDO A. MABELIN

  • G.R. No. 123076 March 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EVELYN C. PATAYEK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132165 March 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELLY A. SARAP

  • G.R. No. 132761 March 26, 2003 - NORMA ORATE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135682 March 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO B. REYES

  • G.R. No. 137406 March 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO DELADA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 137795 March 26, 2003 - COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN-CALAMBA v. BELEN P. VILLAS

  • G.R. No. 141833 March 26, 2003 - LM POWER ENGINEERING CORP. v. CAPITOL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION GROUPS INC.

  • G.R. No. 142403 March 26, 2003 - ALEJANDRO GABRIEL, ET AL. v. SPS. PABLO MABANTA AND ESCOLASTICA COLOBONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145726 March 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. 150718 March 26, 2003 - BASILIO BORJA, SR. v. SULYAP, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155618 March 26, 2003 - EDGAR Y. SANTOS v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126029 March 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REY SUNGA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1395 March 28, 2003 - BAIKONG AKANG CAMSA v. AURELIO D. RENDON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1412 March 28, 2003 - BERNIE G. MIAQUE, ET AL. v. NILO P. PAMONAG

  • A.M. No. P-01-1491 March 28, 2003 - ELEANOR TEODORA MARBAS-VIZCARRA v. PRINCESITO SORIANO

  • A.M. No. P-02-1535 March 28, 2003 - FERNANDO FAJARDO v. RODOLFO V. QUITALIG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1766 March 28, 2003 - LINDA M. SACMAR v. AGNES REYES-CARPIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1767 March 28, 2003 - ROSALIA DOCENA-CASPE v. ARNULFO O. BUGTAS

  • G.R. No. 112459 March 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO TUMULAK

  • G.R. Nos. 116224-27 March 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONATO CARAIG

  • G.R. No. 139455 March 28, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. PEDRO MARIANO

  • G.R. No. 139907 March 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO BATES

  • G.R. No. 142930 March 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. KAKINGCIO CAÑETE

  • G.R. No. 143704 March 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX MANALLO

  • G.R. No. 152404 March 28, 2003 - RODOLFO ARZAGA, ET AL. v. SALVACION COPIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120135 March 31, 2003 - BANK OF AMERICA NT&SA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  




     
     

    A.M. No. MTJ-02-1395   March 28, 2003 - BAIKONG AKANG CAMSA v. AURELIO D. RENDON, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [A.M. No. MTJ-02-1395. March 28, 2003.]

    BAIKONG AKANG CAMSA, Complainant, v. Judge AURELIO D. RENDON, Municipal Trial Court, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, and Sheriff EDWIN G. CABUG, Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, Respondents.

    R E S O L U T I O N


    VITUG, J.:


    The above-numbered administrative case has its roots from a complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) and gross ignorance of the law against Judge Aurelio D. Rendon and for gross ignorance of the law and violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for public officials and employees against Sheriff Edwin Cabug.

    The factual and case background was encapsulated in the decision of this Court, bearing the same title as the instant case, promulgated on 19 February 2002; viz:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "On 22 May 1997, respondent judge rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff Philippine Evangelical Enterprises and ordered defendant Baikong Akang Camsa —

    "‘1. To restore the plaintiff in complete possession of the two parcels of land subject of this controversy, Lot No. 3, Sgs-12-000273 and Lot No. 1, Sgs-12-000273, aforementioned;

    ‘2. To remove the wire fence she erected on the property at her own expense;

    ‘3. To pay the plaintiff P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees and P10,000.00 as litigation expenses;

    ‘4. To pay the plaintiff the sum of P40,000.00 as exemplary damages; [and]

    ‘5. To pay the cost of this suit.’

    "The decision was not appealed to the Regional Trial Court. When the decision became final and executory, the plaintiff filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. On 15 December 1997, the writ was issued. Respondent sheriff, however, failed to enforce the writ. According to complainant, respondent judge then issued, motu proprio, an alias writ of execution, the contents of which did not conform with the dispositive portion of the decision, dated 22 May 1997, in that the alias writ of execution included an order of demolition. Complainant also asserted that prior to the rendition of the decision, respondent judge demanded, through a mutual friend, the amount of P60,000.00 in exchange for a favorable decision but that complainant was only able to give P30,000.00. In the case of respondent sheriff, complainant claimed that extraordinary force was used by the sheriff in the enforcement of the writ of execution.

    "In his comment, respondent judge denied having issued an alias writ of execution motu proprio but that he only issued it upon motion filed by the plaintiff. He explained that the contents of the alias writ of execution was in total conformity with the dispositive portion of the decision of the court. He strongly disavowed having demanded P60,000.00, or having received P30,000.00, from complainant in exchange for a favorable decision.

    "Respondent sheriff, in his own comment, maintained that the enforcement of the alias writ of execution was done in accordance with standard rules, and that complainant, in defiance of the writ of execution, had refused to vacate the property, prompting respondent sheriff to then seek the assistance of Provincial Commander Col. Acme and his assistant Col. Rinazo so as to ensure an orderly enforcement of the writ of execution.

    "On 19 February 2001, an omnibus manifestation was submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator (’OCA’) by Renee Rendon-Lozano, daughter of respondent judge, informing the OCA of the death of her father, respondent Judge Aurelio D. Rendon, on 01 February 2001 and seeking a partial release of his retirement benefits.

    "The OCA, in its memorandum of 25 June 2001, opined that based on the complaint and comment submitted by respondents and ‘considering the seriousness of the charges against respondents and the conflicting allegations of the parties, a more thorough investigation (was) imperative,’ and recommended that the matter be referred to Executive Judge German Malcampo of the Regional Trial Court of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, Branch 19, for investigation, report and recommendation."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Due to Judge Rendon’s death before a formal investigation of the case could be pursued, this Court, in its 19 February 2002 decision, held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against Judge Aurelio Rendon of the Municipal Trial Court of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, is DISMISSED. The case, however, against Sheriff Edwin Cabug is referred to Executive Judge German M. Malcampo, Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, for investigation, report and recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of the records of the case." 1

    The report and recommendation of Executive Judge Malcampo was duly noted by the Court and thereafter referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation.

    In compliance, the OCA, through Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock, in a memorandum addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., dated 03 October 2002, made its findings and recommendation, the pertinent portions reading thusly:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "A simple perusal of the said decision and alias writ will readily show that both directed respondent sheriff ‘To remove the wire fence she (defendant) erected on the property at her (defendant) own expense.’ Simply stated, the removal of said improvements must be done at the expense of the defendant (the complainant in this case). Thus, in the event that the respondent failed to implement the said directive, the procedure laid down under Section 10(d), Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court must be followed as a matter of course, to wit: ‘when the property subject of the execution contains improvements constructed or planted by the judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove said improvements except upon special order of the court, issued upon motion of the judgment obligee, after due hearing and after the former has failed to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court.’

    "Hence, as clearly stated in the above-quoted rule, it is only upon the filing of a motion by the proper party that a ‘Special Order of Demolition’ is issued by the Court. Without the said special order, the sheriff cannot arrogate upon himself a duty that is not directed for him to perform. Thus, there is no doubt that respondent sheriff violated a rule, which specifically provides for a procedure before a certain act should be done. A sheriff’s function [is] purely ministerial, not discretionary. In this case, respondent sheriff exercised his discretion by stretching the provisions of the writ. It was clearly established during the investigation that respondent sheriff was fully aware of the need to secure a prior order from the court before a demolition could be effected. In fact, the complainant’s counsel even called his attention regarding the provisions under Section 10(d) of Rule 39. This notwithstanding, he continued with his wrongful act. For this reason, respondent sheriff must be administratively penalized.

    "x       x       x

    "In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Sheriff Edwin G. Cabug, RTC, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, be found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and that he be meted with a penalty of FINE in the sum of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos. Complainant’s other charges, to wit: manifest partiality in the execution of duties as a sheriff and violation of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019), be DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence."cralaw virtua1aw library

    We accept the above findings and recommendation of the OCA.

    During the investigation of this case, complainant, through counsel, submitted an affidavit of desistance. The Investigating Judge correctly proceeded with the investigation despite the statement of desistance.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    An affidavit of desistance by a complainant does not divest the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to investigate and ascertain the truth of the matter alleged in a complaint against a court personnel. 2 The Court has an interest in the conduct and behavior of all officials and employees of the judiciary and in ensuring at all times the proper delivery of justice to the people. Its efforts in that direction cannot be frustrated by any private arrangement of the parties. 3

    In this case, respondent sheriff undoubtedly exceeded his authority in executing the alias writ of execution which, here reproduced, read:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    TO: THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF

    OR HIS DEPUTY

    ISULAN, SULTAN KUDARAT

    GREETINGS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    A Sheriff’s return of service having been made to this Court by Sheriff IV Edwin G. Cabug on 06 March 1998 and acting on the informations contained therein, this Alias Writ of Execution is hereby issued commanding you to restore the plaintiff in complete possession of two parcels of land subject of this controversy Lot No. 3, Sgs-12-000273 and Lot No. 1, Sgs-12-000273, aforementioned; to remove the wire fence she (defendant) erected on the property at her (defendant) own expense, and that of goods and chattels of Bai Akong (C)amsa (defendant) of Kalawag 3, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat you cause to be made the amount of P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees and P10,000.00 as litigation expenses; to pay the plaintiff the sum of P40,000.00 as exemplary damages; to pay the cost of suit, together with your lawful fees for the service of this execution all in the Philippine Currency which Philippine Evangelical Enterprises, Inc., represented by its President, Rev. Jared W. Barker (plaintiff) recovered in the Municipal Trial Court of Isulan, Province of Sultan Kudarat, in the Decision rendered by this Court dated May 22, 1997, (copy of which is hereto attached) against Bai Akong (C)amsa for Forcible Entry and Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order, and that you tender the same to plaintiff, Philippine Evangelical Enterprises, Inc., rep. by its President, Rev. Jared W. Barker aside from your fees within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof with your proceedings endorsed thereon.

    "But if sufficient personal property can not be found whereof to satisfy this execution and lawful fees thereon, then you are commanded that of the lands and building of the said Bai Akong (C)amsa, you cause to be made the sum of money in the manner required by law and the Rules of Court and to make return of your proceedings with this Writ within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof.

    "Likewise, you are hereby ordered to eject defendant, her agents, representatives and all persons acting on her behalf or those who are not supposed to be inside the properties, subject of this case, in view of the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction restoring plaintiff to the possession of the property described as Lot No. 3, Sgs-12-000273 (portion of Lot No. 50, SWO-17260, situated in Kalawag 1, Extension, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat), containing an area of TWELVE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THREE (12,753) Square meters, more or less, and also directing defendant and her agents to desist from further committing acts of dispossession against plaintiff over another property described as Lot No. 1, Sgs-12-000273 (portion of Lot No. 50, SWO-17260, situated in Kalawag 1, Extension, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat), containing an area of NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY THREE (9,653) Square meters, more or less, which properties are both subjects of this case, and a restraining order issued on December 11, 1996 which was made permanent by the subsequent issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on December 23, 1996; and to remove all improvements introduced by them therein in order to give full effect and compliance to this Alias Writ of Execution.

    "The PNP Regional Director, Region XII, PNP Provincial Director of Sultan Kudarat, the Station Commander of PNP Isulan, Sultan Kudarat and the Brigade Commander of the 301st Brigade, 3rd Division, Philippine Army based in Barangay Kalandagan, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat are hereby directed to give full and necessary assistance to the Provincial Sheriff, his Deputy or Deputies for the immediate and complete implementation or enforcement of this Alias Writ of Execution.

    "Let copies of this order be furnished to the Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila, the Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, the PNP National Director, Camp Crame, Quezon City, and the Army Chief of Staff, Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon (City).

    March, 1998, at Isulan, Sultan (Kudarat)

    (Sgd.) AURELIO D. RENDON

    Municipal Trial Judge 4

    Clearly, the alias writ of execution did not give authority to respondent sheriff to undertake the questioned demolition. Although he could have been confused by the statement in the writ directing him "to remove all improvements introduced by them therein in order to give full effect and compliance to this Alias Writ of Execution," respondent, nevertheless, was expected to be guided by Section 10(d), Rule 39, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "When the property subject of the execution contains improvements constructed or planted by the judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove said improvements except upon special order of the court, issued upon motion of the judgment obligee after due hearing and after the former has failed to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Indeed, complainant called the attention of respondent sheriff to the above provision of the Rules but the latter still went on with the demolition.chanrobles.com : law library

    Sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are officers of the Court and agents of the law. It behooves them to discharge their duties with utmost care and diligence, particularly in implementing the orders of the court, for hardly can they err without affecting the efficiency of the process by which justice is administered. 5 The sheriff is the front-line representative of the justice system in this country, and if the sheriff loses the trust reposed in him, he inevitably diminishes likewise the faith of our people in the judiciary. 6

    Respondent sheriff should have been circumspect in the performance of his duty.

    WHEREFORE, Sheriff Edwin G. Cabug is declared guilty of gross ignorance of the law, and he is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction in the future will be dealt with severely.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 87–88.

    2. Farrales v. Judge Camarista, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1184, 02 March 2000, 327 SCRA 84.

    3. Caña v. Santos, A.M. No. 93-10-1269-RTC, 08 July 1994, 234 SCRA 17.

    4. Rollo, pp. 54–56.

    5. Ignacio v. Payumo, A.M. No. P-00-1396, 24 October 2000, 344 SCRA 169.

    6. Dilan v. Dulfo, A.M. No. P-99-1293, 11 March 1999, 304 SCRA 460.

    A.M. No. MTJ-02-1395   March 28, 2003 - BAIKONG AKANG CAMSA v. AURELIO D. RENDON, ET AL.




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED