Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > March 2009 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-03-1711 : March 18, 2009] PILAR QUINTO V. ANTOLIN O. CUIZON, SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 39, QUEZON CITY:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 18 March 2009:

A.M. No. P-03-1711 - Pilar Quinto v. Antolin O. Cuizon, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 39, Quezon City


RESOLUTION


Considering the Report o� the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

Complainant Quinto alleges that Sheriff Cuizon went to her place on 20 June 2002 at 2:00 pm to implement the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 13968. According lo Ms. Quinto, she informed Sheriff Cuizon thai her lawyer had not yet received any order from the court regarding her Manifestation and Motion to hold in Abeyance the Writ of Execution but Sheriff Cuizon allegedly ignored her plea and proceeded, together with the aid of ten (10) armed men, to bring out her personal belongings. She declares that Sheriff Cuizon proceeded with the implementation of the Writ of Execution without any consideration by throwing her things which resulted to some getting lost or destroyed. Thereafter. Julio Nasis, the representative of the plaintiff, handed over a certain amount to Sheriffs Cuizon and Justiniano Dela Cruz. Five days later, on 25 June 2002, Ms. Quinto received the order denying her Manifestation and Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Writ of Execution.

In his Comment, dated 25 September 2002, Sheriff Cuizon narrates that Civil Case No. 139680 for unlawful detainer was decided against Ms. Quinto on 27 February 1997. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for review of Ms. Quinto and, on 16 September 1998, the petition for review on certiorari, in G.R. No. 134361, was dismissed. Complainant's subsequent motion for reconsideration was  denied with  finality on 2 December 1998. On 12 May 2000, the court of origin, the Metropolitan Trial Court, issued a writ of execution. On 28 May 2002, Ms. Quinto filed a Manifestation with Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Enforcement of the Writ oi Execution, which was denied on 13 June 2002. Ms. Quinto received the Notice to Vacate on 24 May 2002. On 20 June 2002, Sheriff Cuizon implemented the writ. On 21 June 2002, Ms. Quinto filed a motion for reconsideration of the 13 June 2002 order, which was also denied on 5 August 2002.

Sheriff Cuizon claims that, since a writ of execution has been issued by the court, it was his ministerial duty to implement it, more so because Ms. Quinto admitted having received the Notice to Vacate on 24 May 2002. He denies using undue force in the course of the implementation of the writ. He also explains that the money handed over by Julio Nasis was for the workers hired by the latter and not for him. Sheriff Cuizon attached the affidavit of Julio Nasis wherein the latter attested that he gave the money directly to the workers he hired.

In his Comment, daled 27 September 2002, Sheriff Dela Cruz declares that the reason he was present when Sheriff Cuizon implemented the writ against Ms. Quinto on 20 June 2002 was because he himself was executing the decision rendered by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 38, Quezon City, in Civil Case No. 38-1419 against Ms. Quinto's daughter Ms. Maria Cristina Q. Eugenio.

In a Joint-Reply, dated 12 November 2002, Ms. Quinto and Ms. Eugenio claim that Sheriffs Cuizon and Dela Cruz are both trying to hide something. They cite the fact that there is an admission as to the receipt of money from Julio Nasis; but as to whom the money was given is a matter of evidence necessitating a full blown trial.

The Second Division on the Court, in a Resolution, dated 2 July 2003, resolved to dismiss the administrative complaint against Sheriff Justiniano Dela Cruz and to refer the complaint against Sheriff Cuizon to the Executive Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City for investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of the records and further ordered the administrative case against the latter to be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter.

The First Division of the Court, in its Resolution, dated 9 August 2006, referred the case to Executive Judge Maria Filomena D. Singh-Paulite of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City for investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of the records in order to thresh out the conflicting factual issues regarding the money handed over by one Julio Nasis.

In a Resolution, dated 21 April 2008, the Third Division of the Court resolved to direct 2^nd Vice-Executive Judge, Edgardo Bellosillo, Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City to conduct the investigation and submit, within sixty (60) days from receipt of the complete records, the investigation, report and recommendation, upon promotion of Judge Maria Filomena D. Singh [Paulite] as Regional Trial Court Judge.

On 27 August 2008, the Third Division of the Court granted the request of an additional sixty (60) days, or until 3 October 2008, within which to submit the investigation, report and recommendation.

On 17 November 2008, the Third Division of the Court referred the investigation report of Judge Bellosillo to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation within ten (10) days from notice.

In his Report, dated 3 October 2008, Honorable Edgardo B. Bellosillo, recommended the dismissal of the case, saying:

Contrary to the intention of the complainant (Quinto), there is (sic) no irregularities in the implementation of the writ by Sheriff Cuizon. It is worthwhile to note that the Decision was already final and executory and it was ministerial on the part of the court (MeTC Br. 39) to issue the writ. Well settled is the issue that once the writ is issued and no restraining order was issued to slop its implementation, it is the duty of the sheriff to execute it according to its mandate. (See Padilla vs. Arabia, 242 SCRA 227).

The complainant also claimed that the respondent (Cuizon) threw her personal belongings outside the premises, But the photocopy of the photographs attached to the record belied complainant's allegations.A cursory perusal of the photographs, it shows that complainant (sic) personal belongings were properly piled up at the sidewalks and they were even covered by something to prevent their exposure from rain and sunlight.

Lastly, the complaint alleged that money was handed by the representative, Julio NAsis, to the respondent. In support of her accusation, the complainant attached the affidavit of her witnesses. However, the complainant and her alleged witnesses failed to appear during the investigation of this case, by which the undersigned take (sic) it as an indication of their lack of interest to prosecute this case and the chance of clarifying some doubts were not materialized. In effect, complainant's bare allegations remained unsubstantiated which could be (sic) threshed out had the compalinant and his witnesses appeared during the investigation. The undersigned still adhere (sic) to a hornbook principle in criminal law,"that in case of doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused."

This office finds no reason to deviate from the findings and recommendation of Investigating Judge Bellosillo. We agree that the accusation of alleged improper actions by respondent sheriff, as enumerated by the complainant, deserves scant consideration.

The duty of a sheriff to execute a valid writ is ministerial and not discretionary. When a writ is placed in the hands of the sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to implement it in accordance with its mandate. [Salcedo v. Caguioa, et.al., A.M. No. MTJ-00-1328 (February 11, 2004)

In administrative proceedings, the quantum proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Further, the complainants have the burden of proving, by substantial evidence the allegations in their complaints. [Ebero v. Camposano, et.al., A.M. No. P-04-1792 (12 March 2004)]. In the present case, respondent sheriff, is faced with this administrative complaint, in his effort to perform his duties. However, it is believed that respondent sheriff was within the bounds of his duties when he implemented the writ of execution. Since the actuations of respondent sheriff were within his official functions, the instant complaint must be dismissed.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully recommended for consideration of thre Honorable Court, that the instant administrative complaint against Antolin O. Cuizon, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 39, Quezon City,be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Antolin O. Cuizon, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 39, Quezon City, is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED

WITNESS the Honorable Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Hon. Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Dante O. Tinga (designated member per Special Order No. 590 dated 17 March 2009), Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura and Diosdado M. Peralta, Members, Third Division, this 18^th day of March 2009.