December 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > December 2009 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-06-2187 : December 16, 2009] ATTY. BLESILO F. P. BUAN V. GENARO U. CAJUGUIRAN, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 65, TARLAC CITY AND ANTONIO J. LEAÑO, JR., SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TARLAC CITY:
[A.M. No. P-06-2187 : December 16, 2009]
ATTY. BLESILO F. P. BUAN V. GENARO U. CAJUGUIRAN, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 65, TARLAC CITY AND ANTONIO J. LEAÑO, JR., SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TARLAC CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 16 December 2009:
A.M. No. P-06-2187 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2129-P): ATTY. BLESILO F. P. BUAN v. GENARO U. CAJUGUIRAN, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Tarlac City and ANTONIO J. LEANO, JR., Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Tarlac City
Complainant Atty. Blesilo F. P. Buan (complainant) alleged that he was served with a writ of possession issued by Branch 65 of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City (RTC-Tarlac City) in Land Case No. 6817. Upon examination of the writ, complainant allegedly told respondents Sheriff Antonio J- Lea�o, Jr. of the Office of the Clerk of Court and Sheriff Genaro U. Cajuguiran of Branch 65 (respondents), both of the RTC-Tarlac City, that he would surrender the subject property only with reservation to recover the same in another proceeding. Respondents proceeded and enforced the said writ. Respondents padlocked the doors of complainant's tenants causing them to close shop. In the meantime, complainant filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Possession.
On 25 November 2004, complainant filed a complaint for Nullity of Title with an application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order docketed as Civil Case No. 9712 filed before the RTC-Tarlac City, Branch 64. On 13 'December 2004, Branch 64 issued a temporary restraining order. On 3 January 2005, the prayer for preliminary injunction was granted and complainant was directed to post a bond of P 2 million. On 24 January 2005, the writ of preliminary injunction was issued.
In a letter-complaint dated 11 February 2005, complainant charged respondents with conduct unbecoming a public official and abuse of authority claiming that, despite the issuance of a preliminary injunction, respondents still demanded, with threat and intimidation, from one of the stall occupants to vacate the subject property.
In their joint Comment, respondents denied the allegations in the complaint contending that Branch 65 issued a writ of possession on 10 October 2004 directing them to place the bank in possession of the subject property. They served a Notice to Vacate on complainant and all persons claiming right under him. Respondents further explained that before the writ of possession was executed, a conference was held on 23 November 2004 wherein complainant, respondents and a representative of the bank agreed that complainant would surrender only a portion of the subject property. Thus, the bank was placed in peaceful possession of the subject property.
Respondents argue that they were not aware of an order granting the writ of preliminary injunction when they executed the writ of possession. Respondents further argue that they did not find any writ of preliminary injunction issued when they personally examined the records. They denied using threat and intimindation on complainant's tenants when the writ of possession was implemented.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) opined that the property subject of the writ of possession had a pending controversy before Branch 64, hence it was not proper for the respondents to proceed with the implementation of the writ without first consulting the judge concerned. While it is their ministerial duty to act on a writ of execution, this duty has its limitation, that is, when it is restrained by the courts. In implementing the writ of possession despite the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court, respondents' act constitutes simple misconduct. The OCA recommended that respondents be penalized to pay a fine of P10,000 with a warning that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
Records show that the prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was granted on 3 January 2005 and the trial court issued the writ of preliminary injunction on 24 January 2005. However, even after the writ of preliminary injunction was issued, respondents still went to one of complainant's tenants who was operating a Lotto and demanded that he vacate the subject property. Respondent Lea�o even threw the white board, pounded on the glass window and shouted at the people at the ticket booth.[1] Indeed, respondents' act of further implementing the writ of possession despite the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction restraining them from implementing the writ of possession constitutes simple misconduct. And as correctly pointed out by the OCA, respondents must not only act with promptness in the performance of their duty but must also act with prudence, caution and attention that careful men usually exercise in the management of their affairs. We do not, however, in this case pass upon the validity of the preliminary injunction issued by Branch 64.
Affidavit of Pablito Capulong, Jr. dated 8 February 2005.
WHEREFORE, we find respondents Sheriff Antonio J. Lea�o, Jr. of the Office of the Clerk of Court and Sheriff Genaro U. Cajuguiran of Branch 65, both of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City, guilty of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT. We FINE each respondent P10,000, with a warning that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 16th day of December, 2009.
A.M. No. P-06-2187 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2129-P): ATTY. BLESILO F. P. BUAN v. GENARO U. CAJUGUIRAN, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Tarlac City and ANTONIO J. LEANO, JR., Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Tarlac City
Complainant Atty. Blesilo F. P. Buan (complainant) alleged that he was served with a writ of possession issued by Branch 65 of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City (RTC-Tarlac City) in Land Case No. 6817. Upon examination of the writ, complainant allegedly told respondents Sheriff Antonio J- Lea�o, Jr. of the Office of the Clerk of Court and Sheriff Genaro U. Cajuguiran of Branch 65 (respondents), both of the RTC-Tarlac City, that he would surrender the subject property only with reservation to recover the same in another proceeding. Respondents proceeded and enforced the said writ. Respondents padlocked the doors of complainant's tenants causing them to close shop. In the meantime, complainant filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Possession.
On 25 November 2004, complainant filed a complaint for Nullity of Title with an application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order docketed as Civil Case No. 9712 filed before the RTC-Tarlac City, Branch 64. On 13 'December 2004, Branch 64 issued a temporary restraining order. On 3 January 2005, the prayer for preliminary injunction was granted and complainant was directed to post a bond of P 2 million. On 24 January 2005, the writ of preliminary injunction was issued.
In a letter-complaint dated 11 February 2005, complainant charged respondents with conduct unbecoming a public official and abuse of authority claiming that, despite the issuance of a preliminary injunction, respondents still demanded, with threat and intimidation, from one of the stall occupants to vacate the subject property.
In their joint Comment, respondents denied the allegations in the complaint contending that Branch 65 issued a writ of possession on 10 October 2004 directing them to place the bank in possession of the subject property. They served a Notice to Vacate on complainant and all persons claiming right under him. Respondents further explained that before the writ of possession was executed, a conference was held on 23 November 2004 wherein complainant, respondents and a representative of the bank agreed that complainant would surrender only a portion of the subject property. Thus, the bank was placed in peaceful possession of the subject property.
Respondents argue that they were not aware of an order granting the writ of preliminary injunction when they executed the writ of possession. Respondents further argue that they did not find any writ of preliminary injunction issued when they personally examined the records. They denied using threat and intimindation on complainant's tenants when the writ of possession was implemented.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) opined that the property subject of the writ of possession had a pending controversy before Branch 64, hence it was not proper for the respondents to proceed with the implementation of the writ without first consulting the judge concerned. While it is their ministerial duty to act on a writ of execution, this duty has its limitation, that is, when it is restrained by the courts. In implementing the writ of possession despite the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court, respondents' act constitutes simple misconduct. The OCA recommended that respondents be penalized to pay a fine of P10,000 with a warning that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
Records show that the prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was granted on 3 January 2005 and the trial court issued the writ of preliminary injunction on 24 January 2005. However, even after the writ of preliminary injunction was issued, respondents still went to one of complainant's tenants who was operating a Lotto and demanded that he vacate the subject property. Respondent Lea�o even threw the white board, pounded on the glass window and shouted at the people at the ticket booth.[1] Indeed, respondents' act of further implementing the writ of possession despite the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction restraining them from implementing the writ of possession constitutes simple misconduct. And as correctly pointed out by the OCA, respondents must not only act with promptness in the performance of their duty but must also act with prudence, caution and attention that careful men usually exercise in the management of their affairs. We do not, however, in this case pass upon the validity of the preliminary injunction issued by Branch 64.
Affidavit of Pablito Capulong, Jr. dated 8 February 2005.
WHEREFORE, we find respondents Sheriff Antonio J. Lea�o, Jr. of the Office of the Clerk of Court and Sheriff Genaro U. Cajuguiran of Branch 65, both of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City, guilty of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT. We FINE each respondent P10,000, with a warning that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 16th day of December, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Affidavit of Pablito Capulong, Jr. dated 8 February 2005.
