THIRD DIVISION
ERLINDA Y. LICUDINE,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-02-1618
February 14, 2003
-versus-
BRANCH CLERK OF
COURT
WILFREDO P. SAQUILAYAN
AND SHERIFF WILMAR
M. DE VILLA,
Respondents. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a verified letter-complaint
dated February 2, 1999, addressed to the Office of the Court
Administrator
(OCA), Erlinda Y. Licudine, assisted by her counsel Atty. Teodulo M.
Punzalan,
charged Atty. Wilfredo P. Saquilayan, Branch Clerk of Court, and Wilmar
M. De Villa, Sheriff, both of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21,
Imus,
Cavite, with dishonesty and misconduct, relative to the execution of
judgment
in Civil Case No. 1470-97.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her complaint,[1]
Licudine alleged that she is the defendant in Civil Case No. 1470-97 of
the said trial court, entitled "Prudencio Dolon vs. Alejandrino V.
Banoan
and Erlinda Licudine" for damages. On June 13, 1997, the trial court
rendered
its Decision ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally
plaintiff
Prudencio Dolon damages in the total sum of P261,363.41. After the
decision
became final and executory, the corresponding writ of execution was
issued.
Thus, respondent De Villa levied upon complainant’s Honda Civic car
with
Plate No. UAR 631 and scheduled it for auction sale on October 21,
1997.
However, before that date, the parties met and agreed that complainant
would pay Dolon only P120,000.00 on installment basis, instead of the
P261,363.41
awarded by the trial court. This oral agreement was made in the
presence
of respondents Atty. Saquilayan and De Villa, together with Dolon’s
wife
and Barangay Chairman Estrellita Laines. Both respondents told
complainant
that upon payment of the P120,000.00, the case would be considered
closed
and terminated.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant further
alleged that as partial payment and in exchange for the release of the
car to the defendants, she gave respondent De Villa P50,000.00 to be
paid
to Dolon, who acknowledged having received it on October 21, 1997.[2]
On that same day, complainant likewise executed a promissory note
wherein
she undertook to pay Dolon P70,000.00 to complete the agreed compromise
amount "on or before January 15, 1998 without need of demand."[3]
On January 30, 1998, complainant paid Dolon the sum of P70,000.00
mentioned
in her promissory note.[4]
On April 16, 1998, complainant was surprised when she learned that
respondent
De Villa issued a Sheriff’s Return stating that the writ of execution
was
"Partially Satisfied."[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 18, 1999,
respondent De Villa levied upon complainant’s L-300 van with Plate No.
PYK 722 and scheduled its auction sale on January 29, 1999. On that
date,
the van, costing P180,000.00, was sold for only P60,000.00 to Dolon,
being
the highest bidder. When complainant protested, De Villa told her to
redeem
the van for P60,000.00 until February 1, 1999. That day, she proceeded
to the court to tender P60,000.00, but for unknown reason, respondent
sheriff
refused to accept the amount and instead remarked, "Dapat hindi ko na
kayo
intertainen, hindi kayo nakakaintindi."[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant finally
alleged that respondents "made misrepresentation" that her payment of
P120,000.00
to Dolon would be considered full satisfaction of the money judgment in
Civil Case No. 1470-97; and that respondent, Branch Clerk of Court
Atty.
Saquilayan, received P2,000.00 from her "as his professional fee" for
arranging
the compromise agreement. She thus prayed that both respondents be
dismissed
from the service for dishonesty and grave misconduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, in her letter
to the Court Administrator dated March 26, 1999,[7]
complainant, assisted by counsel, asked that her complaint be
considered
"WITHDRAWN" "for personal reasons."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 5, 1999, then
Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo required the respondents to
file
their comment on the complaint within 10 days from notice.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their separate comments,[9]
respondents averred that the allegations in the complaint "do not
reflect
the actual events that transpired in our office." Actually, the
complaint
"was the result of a misunderstanding which, after threshing it out
with
(the parties), the truth has come out that we have no fault,
negligence,
misdeeds nor was there any dishonesty committed by us against (them) in
this case." Respondent Atty. Saquilayan also stated that he has been a
Branch Clerk of Court since 1994 with an unblemished record and his
performance
has been outstanding for the past 5 years as shown by his performance
ratings.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It appears in the comment
of De Villa, respondent sheriff, that pursuant to the writ of execution
issued in Civil Case No. 1470-97, he levied upon complainant’s Honda
Civic
car with Plate No. UAR 631 and set its auction sale on October 21,
1997.
But the parties verbally agreed that complainant would pay plaintiff
Dolon
only P120,000.00 instead of the P261,363.41 awarded by the trial court.
He then required them to place their agreement in writing. After
complainant
had paid Dolon the entire sum of P120,000.00 (on two installments), the
latter informed respondent sheriff that the amount was not enough
considering
the damages he suffered. Since the parties still failed to reduce in
writing
their compromise agreement, respondent sheriff returned the writ of
execution
partially satisfied. On January 12, 1999 the trial court issued an
alias
writ of execution.[11]
Accordingly, he levied upon complainant’s L300 van with Plate No. PYK
722
and set the auction sale on January 29, 1999. He told her that if she
could
produce on time the amount of P141,363.41 representing the balance of
the
money judgment, the van would be returned to her. During the auction
sale,
the van was awarded to Dolon, being the highest bidder. He then
suggested
that if she can pay him the balance of the money judgment on February
1,
1999, he will return the van to her since he is more interested in the
full payment of the award. On February 1, 1999, having been informed by
complainant and her counsel that they would redeem the van for
P60,000.00
(which was the bid of Dolon), respondent sheriff advised her to present
such offer to Dolon. Instead of doing so, she insisted to redeem the
van
for P60,000.00. At this juncture, respondent sheriff told her, "Hindi
ko
na kayo eentertainin, hindi ninyo ako maintindihan." He never demanded
a single centavo from the parties, adding that, "Hindi ko po kayang
gawin
and binibintang nila sa akin sapagkat may takot po ako sa Panginoong
Diyos
at inaalagaan ko po and aking pangalan at dignidad ng aking pamilya.
Ayoko
pong sirain at ipagwalang bahala and ibinigay sa aking pagtitiwala ng
Hukuman
sa pagtupad ko ng aking tungkulin bilang sheriff at mabalewala ang
rekomendasyong
ipinagkaloob sa akin ng inyong tanggapan." He submitted the letters of
Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño and Cristina D.
Reyes,
a litigant in a civil case, commending him for his impressive and
efficient
performance as court sheriff.[12]
He believes that the filing of the complaint was merely due to a
"misunderstanding"
considering that on April 5, 1999, complainant finally paid the balance
of the money judgment as shown by the Sheriff’s Return dated April 5,
1999.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Court then ordered
that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and
required
the parties to manifest whether they are submitting it for resolution
on
the basis of the pleadings and records already filed. Only respondents
submitted such manifestation. It should be recalled that complainant
asked
for the withdrawal of her complaint.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Report and Recommendation,[14]
Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez recommended that "the
complaint
be dismissed and that both respondents be ADVISED to be more
circumspect
in the performance of their duties." His evaluation reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"EVALUATION: The evidence
on record is bereft of any evidence showing that the respondents
benefited
materially from the transactions complained about. It is however
improper
for respondents as court employees to initiate an amicable settlement
of
money judgment in a case already ripe for the execution of judgment. It
can be well argued that herein complainant and the prevailing party had
all the right to agree on matters pertaining to their case even if the
same had been decided by the court. However, considering that both
respondents
are employees of the same court which rendered the judgment, initiating
or participating in the settlement, which is a private transaction
between
the parties, undermines the integrity not only of the decision, but
also
of the court which rendered it. The act erodes the credibility of our
judicial
system.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
‘It must be borne in
mind that the conduct required of court personnel must be beyond
reproach
and must always be free from suspicion that may taint the judiciary’
(Abanil
vs. Ramos, Jr., A.M. No. P-98-1270, November 27, 2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The settled rule is
that the complainant’s withdrawal of his complaint, or desistance from
pursuing the same, does not necessarily warrant the dismissal of the
administrative
case. The outcome of an administrative action cannot depend on the will
or pleasure of the complainant who, for reasons of his own, may condone
what may be detestable. Certainly, complainant’s desistance cannot
divest
this Court of its jurisdiction, under Section 6, Article VIII of the
Constitution,[15]
to investigate and decide complaints against erring employees of the
judiciary.
Otherwise stated, such unilateral act does not bind this Court on a
matter
relating to its disciplinary power.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, there are instances
where an administrative case cannot proceed without the active
cooperation
of the complainant. In such cases, this Court finds itself with hardly
any alternative but to dismiss the complaint.[17]
Here, complainant Licudine withdrew her complaint, leaving the charges
against respondents unsubstantiated.cralaw:red
We agree with the finding
of DCA Perez that the record is bereft of any evidence showing that
respondents
benefited materially from the transactions of the parties in the
subject
civil case as charged in the complaint.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, we cannot go
along with the finding of DCA Perez that respondents "initiated" the
parties’
amicable settlement of the money judgment. In the first place,
complainant’s
withdrawal of the complaint only shows that there is no truth in her
charges.
Secondly, there is nothing in the record which positively shows that
respondents
initiated the amicable settlement of the money judgment. Specifically,
the allegation that respondent Atty. Saquilayan demanded and received
from
herein complainant P2,000.00 as his "professional fee" for "initiating"
the questioned agreement has not been proved.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In administrative proceedings,
the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the
allegations
in his complaint.[18]
In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the
presumption
that the respondents have regularly performed their official duties,[19]
as in this case. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the instant
administrative complaint against Branch Clerk of Court Wilfredo P.
Saquilayan
and Sheriff Wilmar M. De Villa of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21,
Imus, Cavite is DISMISSED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Panganiban, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:cralaw:red
[1]
Rollo, at 1. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Annexes "B" and "B-1" (receipts) of letter-complaint, id., at 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Annex "C", id., at 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Annexes "D" (receipt dated January 8, 1998 for P10,000.00); "F"
(receipt
dated January 19, 1998 for P20,000.00); and "G" (receipt dated January
30, 1998 for P40,000.00), id., at 12-15.
[5]
Annex "A", id., at 7-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Letter-complaint, id., at 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Rollo, at 17-18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., at 21-22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., at 23-24; 32-34; 45-48.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id., at 25-31chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id., at 36.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id., at 35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id., at 36-37.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id., at 39-43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
"Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision
over
all courts and the personnel thereof."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Enojas, Jr. vs. Gacott, Jr., 322 SCRA 272, 278-279 (2000); Agulan, Jr.
vs. Fernandez, 356 SCRA 162, 173 (2001); Rizon vs. Zerna, 365 SCRA 315,
319 (2001).
[17]
Dagsa-an vs. Conag, 290 SCRA 12, 14 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Sarmiento vs. Salamat, 364 SCRA 301, 308 (2001), citing Lorena vs.
Encmienda,
302 SCRA 632, 641, (1999) and Cortes vs. Agcaoili, 294 SCRA 423, 456
(1998).
[19]
Sarmiento vs. Salamat, id., citing Onquit vs. Binamira-Parcia, 297 SCRA
354, 364 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |