ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1843-P. January 17, 2005]
KNECHT vs. FRANCISCO
second division
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17 2005.
R E S O L U T I O N
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1843-P (Rene Knecht vs. Reinerio M. Francisco, Sheriff IV, RTC, Br. 152, Pasig City.)
Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated October 11, 2004, to wit:
REASON FOR AGENDA : In its 1st INDORSEMENT/REFERRAL dated 18 November 2003, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon endorsed to this Office the VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT dated 31 October 2002 of Rene Knecht, which charges, among others, Sheriff Reinerio Francisco of the RTC -Branch 152, Pasig City, with violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 4(a), (b), (c) and (d) in connection with Section 7(a) and Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6713.
Complainant states that the instant case refers to the refusal and/or failure of the respondent sheriff to implement the writ of execution anent the delivery of three (3) properties to the possession of the complainant in conspiracy with John Go Kong Wei and then Mayor Benjamin Felix of Cainta, the other respondents in his complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.
He narrates the factual background as follows:
1. In 1990, on account of the decision of the Supreme Court in "Rose Packing Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and PCIB" (G.R. No. L-33084 dated 14 November 1988), ordering the cancellation of three (3) titles over certain parcels of land in Pasig and Cainta, covered by TCT Nos. 286174, 286175 and 286176, all under the name of Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB, for brevity) complainant offered to pay the indebtedness of Rose Packing Company, Inc. (Rose Packing, for brevity) with PCIB. The said offer was allegedly refused illegally and unjustly because respondent John Go Kong Wei, who was Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors of PCIB, was scheming to get the property so he could build a Robinson's mall on the said property. Subsequently thereafter, the Register of Deeds in Pasig City illegally refused to release "new replacement titles" in the name of Knecht, Inc. despite four (4) court orders requiring such transfers.
2. On 25 June 1990, the Municipality of Cainta represented by then Mayor Benjamin Felix filed an expropriation case against the properties of Knecht, Inc., which properties formerly belonged to Rose Packing. However, the former was never impleaded in the said proceedings.
3. In 1995, Title No. 613113 covering the property in Cainta with an area of 31,447 sq.m., more or less, under the name of Knecht, Inc., was supposedly ordered subdivided into three (3) titles, but Deputy Register of Deeds Roberto Salcedo issued only one (1) title, Title No. 660158, with an area [of] 12,704 sq.m., more or less.
4. Since 1993, despite issuance of two (2) writs of possession involving the subject-properties, respondent Sheriff refused and/or failed to implement the same and deliver the said properties to the possession of the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
In his Comment dated 19 February 2004, Reinerio M. Francisco claims that the complaint is baseless and misleading and that he was never remiss in performing his duties but prudence dictated that he hold in abeyance the implementation of the writ of possession as regards the properties situated in Cainta until the final resolution of the case filed involving them.
He recites that on 12 October 1993, a writ of possession was issued by then Judge Ricardo Molina in Civil Case No. 11015 commanding the respondent to place Rose Packing in physical possession of the parcels of lands covered by TCT Nos. 286174, 286175 and 286176, and to eject all adverse occupants therefrom. The respondent served a "notice to vacate" upon PCIB through its counsel and to the Office of the Mayor, Municipality of Cainta.
After the lapse of the grace period given to the occupants to vacate the said premises, the respondent proceeded to the property located at Cainta but, he was prevented from enforcing the writ of possession because a temporary restraining order in connection with the petition for certiorari [was] filed before the Court of Appeals docketed as G.R. SP No. 32435.
On 23 November 1993, the appellate court rendered a Decision in the above-stated case prohibiting enforcement of the said writ. On 14 February 1994, it denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the respondents therein.
On 15 May 2000, Judge Danilo S. Cruz of RTC - Branch 152, Pasig City, issued an Order in Civil Case No. 11015 granting the motion of Rose Packing to direct the respondent sheriff to implement the 12 October 1993 writ of execution/possession against PCIB.
Thereafter, respondent served the writ of possession and Order dated 15 May 2000 on PCIB, the Register of Deeds of Pasig and the Municipality of Cainta, together with a copy of the notice to vacate. Meanwhile, on 08 June 2000, the said municipality filed a motion to quash the said notice while then Mayor Nicanor Felix filed a third-party claim, alleging that there was already an order of condemnation and writ of possession issued by RTC - Branch 74, Antipolo.
Contrary to the allegation of the complainant, respondent contends that the writs have been implemented as evidenced by the various Sheriffs Reports submitted.
EVALUATION: The instant complaint is bereft of merit.
In administrative proceedings, complainants have the burden of proving by substantial evidence, the allegations of their complaint. (Araos vs. Judge Luna-Pison, A.M. RTJ-02-1677,28 February 2002.)
In the case at bar, the complainant failed to present substantial and convincing evidence that respondent had been remiss in the performance of his duty as a sheriff. On the other hand, respondent was able to present sufficient proof that he had performed his duties in implementing the subject-writs, as evidenced by the Sheriffs reports submitted to the court.
When an administrative charge against a court personnel has no basis whatsoever in fact or in law, this Court will not hesitate to protect the innocent court employee against groundless accusation that trifles with judicial process. As a final note, it has been consistently held that this Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees of the judiciary, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. (Sarmi vs. Salamat, A.M. No. P-01-1501, 04 September 2001 quoted in page 76, Handbook for Sheriffs.)
RECOMMENDATION : Respectfully submitted for consideration of this Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant complaint against Reinerio M. Francisco, Sheriff IV of RTC, Branch 152, Pasig City, be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The foregoing findings and recommendation are well taken. There is, indeed, no evidence that the respondent was remiss in the performance of his duties. Considering that the complainant fails to prove the allegations in the complaint by substantial evidence, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. [1] cralaw It must be stressed that charges based on mere conjectures and suppositions cannot be given credence and must forthwith be dismissed. [2] cralaw
The Court resolves to DISMISS the instant administrative complaint against respondent Reinerio M. Francisco for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw See Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Emilio B. Legaspi, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, Br. 22, 405 SCRA 514 (2003).
[2] cralaw Leonides T. Cortes v. Sandiganbayan Justices Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada and Rodolfo G. Palattao, A.M. No. SB-04-11-J, February 13, 2004.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
