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
 

   
October-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-02-1548 October 1, 2003 - ROBERT E. VILLAROS v. RODOLFO ORPIANO

  • A.M. Nos. P-03-1697 & P-03-1699 October 1, 2003 - JOCELYN S. PAISTE v. APRONIANO V. MAMENTA

  • G.R. Nos. 133066-67 October 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO H. LAMBID

  • G.R. No. 137554 October 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN MAMARION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148198 October 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIZABETH CORPUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 150630-31 October 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME OLAYBAR

  • G.R. No. 152176 October 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER D. DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 154130 October 1, 2003 - BENITO ASTORGA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 156034 October 1, 2003 - DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC. v. C & A CONSTRUCTION, INC.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1803 October 2, 2003 - VICTOR A. ASLARONA v. ANTONIO T. ECHAVEZ

  • G.R. No. 128882 October 2, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL AYUDA

  • G.R. No. 145337 October 2, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEE HOI MING

  • G.R. No. 150382 October 2, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE BASITE

  • A.C. No. 6061 October 3, 2003 - RAUL C. SANCHEZ v. SALUSTINO SOMOSO

  • A.M. MTJ-00-1311 October 3, 2003 - SILVESTRE H. BELLO III v. AUGUSTUS C. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1547 October 3, 2003 - LEOPOLDO V. CAÑETE v. NELSON MANLOSA

  • A.M. No. P-02-1550 October 3, 2003 - AMELIA L. AVELLANOSA v. JOSE Z. CAMASO

  • G.R. No. 118375 October 3, 2003 - CELESTINA T. NAGUIAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122134 October 3, 2003 - ROMANA LOCQUIAO VALENCIA, ET AL. v. BENITO A. LOCQUIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143388 October 6, 2003 - SPS. ROLANDO and ROSITA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146569 October 6, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN NEQUIA

  • A.M. Nos. P-03-1744–45 October 7, 2003 - FE ALBANO MADRID v. ANTONIO T. QUEBRAL

  • G.R. No. 135377 October 7, 2003 - DSR-SENATOR LINES, ET AL. v. FEDERAL PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. 149453 October 7, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. PANFILO M. LACSON

  • G.R. No. 149717 October 7, 2003 - EASTERN ASSURANCE & SURETY CORP. v. LTFRB

  • G.R. No. 155258 October 7, 2003 - CONRADO S. CANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.C. No. 4881 October 8, 2003 - RAU SHENG MAO v. ANGELES A. VELASCO

  • G.R. No. 120864 October 8, 2003 - MANUEL T. DE GUIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136845 October 8, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO FLORENDO

  • G.R. No. 145166 October 8, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO ROMERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146118 October 8, 2003 - SAMUEL SAMARCA v. ARC-MEN INDUSTRIES, INC.

  • G.R. Nos. 148056-61 October 8, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE DE CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 149420 October 8, 2003 - SONNY LO v. KJS ECO-FORMWORK SYSTEM PHIL., INC.

  • G.R. No. 152776 October 8, 2003 - HENRY S. OAMINAL v. PABLITO M. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153751 October 8, 2003 - MID PASIG LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154579 October 8, 2003 - MA. LOURDES R. DE GUZMAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. P-96-1179 October 10, 2003 - WINSTON C. CASTELO v. CRISTOBAL C. FLORENDO

  • G.R. No. 110604 October 10, 2003 - BUENAVENTURA S. TENORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140917 October 10, 2003 - MENELIETO A. OLANDA v. LEONARDO G. BUGAYONG, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1640 October 13, 2003 - SAAD ANJUM v. CESAR L. ABACAHIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122765 October 13, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO L. VARGAS

  • G.R. No. 141942 October 13, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY PONCE JAMON

  • G.R. No. 143842 October 13, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANGI L. ADAM

  • G.R. No. 144662 October 13, 2003 - SPS. EFREN AND DIGNA MASON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1459 October 14, 2003 - IMELDA Y. MADERADA v. ERNESTO H. MEDIODEA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1674 October 14, 2003 - PABLO B. FRANCISCO v. OLIVIA M. LAUREL

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1805 October 14, 2003 - TEODORA A. RUIZ v. ROLANDO G. HOW

  • G.R. No. 153157 October 14, 2003 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. ARTHUR B. TONGSON

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1697 October 15, 2003 - EUGENIO K. CHAN v. JOSE S. MAJADUCON

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1699 October 15, 2003 - VERNETTE UMALI-PACO, ET AL. v. REINATO G. QUILALA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1808 October 15, 2003 - RADELIA SY, ET AL. v. ANTONIO FINEZA

  • G.R. Nos. 123144, 123207 & 123536 October 15, 2003 - PABLO P. BURGOS, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126119 October 15, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. GILDO B. PELOPERO PNP

  • G.R. No. 130662 October 15, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO ABON

  • G.R. No. 138364 October 15, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 142381 October 15, 2003 - PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142595 October 15, 2003 - RACHEL C. CELESTIAL v. JESSE CACHOPERO

  • G.R. Nos. 148139-43 October 15, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMENIO CANOY

  • G.R. No. 156273 October 15, 2003 - HEIRS OF TIMOTEO MORENO, ET AL. v. MACTAN-CEBU INT’L. AIRPORT AUTHORITY

  • A.M. No. SCC-00-6-P October 16, 2003 - RE: Ma. Corazon M. Molo

  • A.M. No. P-02-1592 October 16, 2003 - LUZITA ALPECHE v. EXPEDITO B. BATO

  • G.R. No. 141074 October 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORLY LIBRADO

  • G.R. No. 144881 October 16, 2003 - BETTY T. CHUA v. ABSOLUTE MNGT. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 147650-52 October 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO S. PEPITO

  • G.R. No. 152492 October 16, 2003 - PALMA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. MUN. OF MALANGAS

  • G.R. Nos. 153991-92 October 16, 2003 - ANWAR BERUA BALINDONG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1475 October 17, 2003 - MANUEL R. AQUINO v. JOCELYN C. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 131399 October 17, 2003 - ANGELITA AMPARO GO v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133759-60 October 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONITO LORENZO

  • G.R. Nos. 148673-75 October 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO R. ABANILLA

  • G.R. No. 150286 October 17, 2003 - ELCEE FARMS, INC., ET AL. v. PAMPILO SEMILLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142885 October 22, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM TIU, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1368 October 23, 2003 - JOSE GODOFREDO M. NAUI v. MARCIANO C. MAURICIO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 120409 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAMSON PICKRELL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120670 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HEDISHI SUZUKI

  • G.R. No. 125689 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SATIOQUIA

  • G.R. No. 127153 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SATUR G. APOSAGA

  • G.R. No. 132788 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134485 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR PEREZ

  • G.R. Nos. 134573-75 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE BINARAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136849 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR A. CODERES

  • G.R. No. 138456 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO P. DEDUYO

  • G.R. No. 140247 October 23, 2003 - ALEX ASUNCION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143252 October 23, 2003 - CEBU MARINE BEACH RESORT, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146368-69 October 23, 2003 - MADELEINE MENDOZA-ONG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146608 October 23, 2003 - SPS. CONSTANTE & AZUCENA FIRME v. BUKAL ENTERPRISES AND DEV’T. CORP.

  • G.R. No. 147369 October 23, 2003 - SPS. PATRICK and RAFAELA JOSE v. SPS. HELEN and ROMEO BOYON

  • G.R. No. 147549 October 23, 2003 - JESUS DELA ROSA, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO CARLOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149149 October 23, 2003 - ERNESTO SYKI v. SALVADOR BEGASA

  • G.R. No. 149725 October 23, 2003 - OSCAR MAGNO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 150493-95 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO MACABATA

  • G.R. No. 150946 October 23, 2003 - MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF GLAN, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152135 October 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS GIALOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152716 October 23, 2003 - ELNA MERCADO-FEHR v. BRUNO FEHR

  • G.R. Nos. 154796-97 October 23, 2003 - RAYMUNDO A. BAUTISTA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155692 October 23, 2003 - PHIVIDEC INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. CAPITOL STEEL CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155717 October 23, 2003 - ALBERTO JARAMILLA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1586 October 24, 2003 - THELMA C. BALDADO v. ARNULFO O. BUGTAS

  • G.R. No. 119775 October 24, 2003 - JOHN HAY PEOPLES ALTERNATIVE COALITION, ET AL. v. VICTOR LIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119847 October 24, 2003 - JENNY ZACARIAS v. NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137597 October 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JASON S. NAVARRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141615 October 24, 2003 - MAC ADAMS METAL ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION-INDEPENDENT, ET AL. v. MAC ADAMS METAL ENGINEERING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144439 October 24, 2003 - SOUTHEAST ASIA SHIPPING CORP. v. SEAGULL MARITIME CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148120 October 24, 2003 - RODRIGO QUIRAO, ET AL. v. LYDIA QUIRAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148597 October 24, 2003 - GRACE F. MUNSAYAC-DE VILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152285 October 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE OBESO

  • G.R. Nos. 152589 and 152758 October 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 153828 October 24, 2003 - LINCOLN L. YAO v. NORMA C. PERELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139181 October 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 143817 October 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO BAJAR

  • A.C. No. 5829 October 28, 2003 - DANIEL LEMOINE v. AMADEO E. BALON, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1581 October 28, 2003 - MA. CORAZON M. ANDAL v. NICOLAS A. TONGA

  • G.R. No. 134563 October 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO DALA

  • G.R. No. 138933 October 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRYVIE D. GUMAYAO

  • G.R. No. 150540 October 28, 2003 - DIMALUB P. NAMIL, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 155206 October 28, 2003 - GSIS v. EDUARDO M. SANTIAGO

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. P-02-1640   October  13, 2003 - SAAD ANJUM v. CESAR L. ABACAHIN, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [A.M. No. P-02-1640. October 13, 2003.]

    [Formerly OCA IPI No. 00-982-P]

    SAAD ANJUM, Complainant, v. Sheriff IV CESAR L. ABACAHIN and Legal Researcher ABIGAIL M. CARDENAL, RTC, Branch 69, Pasig City, Respondents.

    R E S O L U T I O N


    QUISUMBING, J.:


    This administrative matter stems from an affidavit-complaint, 1 dated January 24, 2000, filed by complainant Saad Anjum charging (a) respondent Cesar L. Abacahin, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 69, with grave misconduct, oppression, partiality, inefficiency, and incompetence; and (b) respondent Legal Researcher Abigail M. Cardenal, also of the same court, with grave misconduct, usurpation of judicial function, and falsification of official documents.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Complainant and his wife, Wilma Anjum, run a variety store in a rented space located at No. 38 Mindanao Avenue, Maharlika Village, Taguig, Metro Manila. For their failure to pay the rent, an ejectment case filed against complainant and his wife before Branch 74 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Taguig docketed as Civil Case SCA No. 1772 entitled "Ismael T. Zacaria v. Sps. Saad Anjum and Wilma Anjum." On November 3, 1998, the MTC of Taguig rendered a decision against them. Complainant and his wife appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig Branch 69. On appeal, the RTC of Pasig granted the appellee’s motion or the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal by Order 2 dated January 7, 2000. On January 11, 2000, respondent Legal Researcher Abigail M. Cardenal issued a writ of execution. 3

    Complainant contends that respondent Abigail M. Cardenal, a mere legal researcher, did not have authority to issue the said writ of execution and that by so doing, she usurped judicial function. Complainant adds that respondent Cardenal, for some malicious, unjust, and unlawful reason, altered the date of the writ of execution to make it appear that the writ was issued on January 12, 2000. She likewise failed to serve a copy of the said writ on either complainant and his wife or their counsel. Respondent Sheriff Cesar L. Abacahin, for his part, forcibly opened their store on the said date and levied upon all goods and chattels found therein including some LPG tanks owned by the Petron Corporation and a Toyota 4-door sedan registered to one Ram Antonio. Complainant blames respondent Abacahin for recklessly leaving some of the seized items on the street and causing the loss and theft of some of the goods. He also assails respondent Abacahin’s failure to serve a copy of the notice of levy and sheriff’s sale before conducting the auction sale and for failure to serve a copy of the notice to vacate before ejecting him and his wife from the leased premises on January 18, 2000. 4

    In his Comment 5 dated November 20, 2000, respondent Abacahin prays for the dismissal of the complaint contending that complainant’s allegations are baseless, untrue, and meant solely to harass him. Respondent Abacahin avers that he mistakenly thought it was already January 12, 2000 when he typed the writ of execution on January 11, 2000. When respondent Cardenal noticed the error, he superimposed the ‘1’ over the original ‘2’ in the date. He asserts he did so in good faith. In addition, he stresses that by Order of January 7, 2000, the trial court had ordered the issuance of a writ of execution; hence, it is inconsequential whether the writ was issued on January 11 or 12 and even more so considering it was on January 12, 2000 that he implemented the said writ. 6

    Respondent Abacahin also denies any irregularity when he levied upon the Toyota 4-door sedan. He explains that because complainant’s wife failed to present evidence that the Toyota 4-door sedan belonged to a third person and because it appeared from all indications that the said car belonged to complainant, he proceeded to levy the said car. Respondent Abacahin declares that the car is still in the Office of the Barangay Captain of Maharlika Village, Taguig waiting to be turned over to its alleged registered owner, Ram Antonio to whom the complainant and his wife referred. As far as the LPG tanks are concerned, respondent Abacahin adds that he had already returned the said tanks to the rightful owner. 7

    Lastly, respondent Abacahin avers that he personally served a copy of the notice to vacate, the writ of execution, and the notice of levy and sheriff’s sale on complainant’s wife on January 12, 2000, but the latter refused to sign receipt. 8

    For her part, respondent Legal Researcher Abigail M. Cardenal stresses that she issued the subject writ of execution in due course considering the trial court’s Order of January 7, 2000 and her designation as acting clerk of court of Branch 69 of the Pasig RTC by the Office of the Court Administrator. She likewise claims that the superimposition of ‘1’ over ‘2’ in the date of the writ of execution was done to correct a clerical error, and asserts that no party, particularly complainant Saad Anjum, was prejudiced by the error. 9

    In a Resolution 10 dated August 28, 2002, the Court re-docketed this case as a regular administrative matter and referred the same to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig for investigation, report, and recommendation. In compliance with the Court’s directive, Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor submitted his report dated January 31, 2003 finding both respondents administratively liable.

    In its memorandum dated April 8, 2003, the Office of the Court Administrator, through Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock, adopted the findings of Judge Villasor and recommended that respondent sheriff Cesar L. Abacahin be fined P1,000 while respondent Legal Research Abigail M. Cardenal be admonished to be more circumspect in the performance of her duties.

    We concur with the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator finding respondent Sheriff Cesar L. Abacahin liable for simple misconduct.

    Section 15, 11 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court governing auction sales of properties on execution states that "the place of sale may be agreed upon by the parties. In the absence of such agreement, the sale of real property or personal property not capable of manual delivery shall be held in the office of the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal Trial Court which issued the writ or which was designated by the appellate court. In the case of personal property capable of manual delivery, the sale shall be held in the place where the property is located." Here, the parties to Civil Case SCA No. 1772 did not agree to hold the auction sale in the Barangay hall of Maharlika Village, Taguig. This notwithstanding, respondent: Abacahin brought out the properties from complainant’s store in No. 38 Mindanao Avenue, Maharlika Village, Taguig and held the auction sale in front of the Barangay Hall. 12 In Tan v. Dael 13 we held that a sheriff must observe the rules for executing a writ. Any act deviating from the procedures laid down by this Court is considered a misconduct that would warrant disciplinary action. 14

    We reiterate that a sheriff, who is an officer of the court upon whom the execution of a final judgment depends, must be circumspect in his behavior. 15 As an officer of the court and therefore agent of the law, respondent Abacahin is mandated to discharge his duties with due care and utmost diligence because, in serving the court’s writs and processes and in implementing its lawful orders, he cannot afford to err without affecting the administration of justice. 16 Any method of execution falling short of the requirement of the law deserves reproach and should not be countenanced. 17

    As to complainant’s other charges, they were found bereft of merit. It very clearly appeared during the hearings before Judge Villasor that complainant himself was not present in their store at the time of the levy and execution. 18 His averment that respondent Abacahin recklessly left the merchandise on the street is not supported by credible evidence and deserves scant consideration. Complainant also openly admitted that respondent Abacahin did not forcibly open their store on January 12, 2000. 19 Complainant’s wife, Wilma Anjum, testified that respondent Abacahin arrived only around 10:00 a.m. that day when the store was already open for regular business and that they did not forcibly open any door therein. 20 Also, complainant and his wife, Wilma, were duly served with copies of the writ of execution, notice to vacate, and notice of levy and sheriff’s sale when respondent Abacahin left copies of the said notices in complainant’s store after Wilma refused to sign receipt of the said notices. 21 Finally, we find no basis for complainant’s claim that respondent Abacahin maliciously levied upon the Toyota 4-door sedan belonging to Ram Antonio, an innocent third person. Neither complainant nor his wife, Wilma, presented to respondent Abacahin the certificates of registration or other proof of ownership of the said vehicle at the time of levy. 22 Also, they were unable to present the supposed owner, Ram Antonio, to claim the car despite their having been able to present Ram Antonio’s supposed affidavit of ownership to respondent Abacahin prior to the scheduled sale. 23

    As to respondent Abigail Cardenal, we find no reason to hold her administratively liable for usurpation of judicial function or for grave misconduct in allegedly falsifying the date in the writ of execution. Respondent Cardenal’s designation as acting clerk of court of Branch 69 of the RTC, of Pasig on January 15, 1999 24 by then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo empowers her to issue said writ of execution. Likewise there is no showing that in correcting the error in the date of the writ of execution respondent Cardenal intended to do wrong, nor was she in bad faith, much less motivated by some other evil motive. There is ample support for her explanation that the superimposition of the ‘1’ over the ‘2’ in the date of the writ of execution was only to correct a typographical mistake. Respondent Abacahin made it clear that respondent Cardenal instructed him to type ‘1’ over the erroneous ‘2’ in the date of the writ so that the actual date of issue, i.e., January 11, 2000, would appear on the writ. However, we find occasion here to remind respondent Cardenal to be more circumspect in the performance of her duties to avoid suspicions of irregularity. The instant complaint could have been easily averted had she simply required respondent Abacahin to retype the page of the writ of execution on which the date appears before signing it.

    We come now to the matter of penalties. In Coraje v. Braceros, 25 a fine of P1,000 was imposed upon the respondent sheriff therein for deviating from the rules in the enforcement of writs of execution. Considering that this is respondent Abacahin’s first infraction, the recommended penalty of fine in the amount of P1,000 is, to our mind, appropriate. 26 As for respondent Cardenal’s infraction, we note that the recommended penalty of reprimand is a bit harsh for the slight infraction she committed. especially since this is likewise her first offense. Admonition suffices in this instance.

    WHEREFORE, respondent CESAR L. ABACAHIN, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 69, is hereby found LIABLE for simple misconduct and is ordered to pay a FINE in the amount of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) with warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely. For her part, respondent Legal Researcher Abigail M. Cardenal, also of the same court, is ADMONISHED to exercise due care in the performance of her duties and is reminded to be more careful in preparing and signing writs and other court processes so that no negative impression is left in the mind of litigants.cralawlibrary : red

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Tinga, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 7–10.

    2. Id. at 11.

    3. Id. at 12–13.

    4. Id. at 7–8.

    5. Id. at 29–33.

    6. Id. at 29.

    7. Id. at 32.

    8. Id. at 29–30.

    9. Id. at 42–43, 45.

    10. Id. at 48.

    11. SEC. 15. Notice of sale of property on execution. — Before the sale of property on execution, notice thereof must be given as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (a) In case of perishable property, by posting written notice of the time and place of the sale in three (3) public places, preferably in conspicuous areas of the municipal or city hall, post office and public market in the municipality or city where the sale is to take place, for such time as may be reasonable, considering the character and condition of the property;

    (b) In case of other personal property, by posting a similar notice in the three (3) public places above-mentioned for not less than five (5) days;

    (c) In case of real property, by posting for twenty (20) days in the three (3) public places above-mentioned a similar notice particularly describing the property and stating where the property is to be sold, and if the assessed value of the property exceeds fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos, by publishing a copy of the notice once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in one newspaper selected by raffle, whether in English, Filipino, or any major regional language published, edited and circulated or, in the absence thereof, having general circulation in the province or city;

    (d) In all cases, written notice of the sale shall be given to the judgment obligor, at least three (3) days before the sale, except as provided in paragraph (a) hereof where notice shall be given at any time before the sale, in the same, in the same manner as personal service of pleadings and other papers as provided by section 6 of Rule 13.

    The notice shall specify the place, date and exact time of the sale which should not be earlier than nine o’clock in the morning and not later that two o’clock in the afternoon. The place of the sale may be agreed upon by the parties. In the absence of such agreement, the sale of real property or personal property not capable of manual delivery shall be held in the office of the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal Trial Court which issued the writ or which was designated by the appellate court. In the case of personal property capable of manual delivery, the sale shall be held in the place where the property is located.

    12. TSN, 21 January 2003, p. 19.

    13. A.M. No. P-00-1392, 13 July 2000, 335 SCRA 513.

    14. Id. at 519–520.

    15. Caseñares v. Almeida, Jr. A.M. No. P-00-1359, 2 February 2000, 324 SCRA 388, 395.

    16. Lumanta v. Tupas, A.M. No. P-02-1544 (Formerly OCA IPI NO. 99-639-P), 26 June 2003, p. 6.

    17. Biglete v. Maputi, Jr., A.M. No. P-00-1407, 15 February 2002, 377 SCRA 1, 6.

    18. TSN, 5 November 2002, pp. 11, 16.

    19. Id. at 23–24.

    20. Id. at 13, 18.

    21. Rollo, p. 30; TSN, 5 November 2002, p. 28.

    22. TSN, 5 November 2002, pp. 29, 32–34.

    23. TSN, 21 January 2003, pp. 21–22.

    24. Rollo, p. 45.

    25. A.M. No. P-97-1257, 18, January 1999, 301 SCRA 62, 64–65.

    26. But see Section 52 (B)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

    A.M. No. P-02-1640   October  13, 2003 - SAAD ANJUM v. CESAR L. ABACAHIN, 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