ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1852-P. January 19, 2005]

PASION vs. IBARRA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 19 2005 .

Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 04-1852-P (Aurora Pasion, represented by Atty. Romeo P. Rodriguez [Attorney-in-Fact] vs. Danilo U. Ibarra, Sheriff III, MTCC-OCC, Tarlac City.)

For consideration is the Report dated 18 October 2004 on the administrative matter submitted to the Court by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

Atty. Romeo P. Rodriguez, as attorney-in-fact of Aurora Pasion, filed a verified Complaint dated 20 January 2004 charging Danilo U. Ibarra, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities-Office of the Clerk of Court (MTCC-OCC), Tarlac City, with Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service in connection with the implementation of the Writ of Demolition in Civil Case No. 8091 entitled "Aurora Cruz-Pasion represented by Atty. Romeo P. Rodriguez v. Reymundo Dimatulac, et al." for Unlawful Detainer, in which Pasion was the winning party.

Atty. Rodriguez basically complains of the partial execution of the Writ of Demolition dated 12 September 2003 which was issued by the MTCC, Br. 1, Tarlac City (presided over by Judge Marvin B. Mangino) as a consequence of its 26 March 2003 Decision and 3 July 2003 Writ of Execution. According to Atty. Rodriguez, he gave respondent Ibarra Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) to defray the expenses for the implementation of the court's demolition order. Respondent allegedly submitted an estimate of the expenses and promised that the order would be fully implemented either on 26 October 2003 or on 1 December 2003. However, the order was not implemented on those dates. Allegedly, the order was only partially implemented as merely a side wall of the defendant's house was demolished. Atty. Rodriguez allegedly sent a demand letter giving respondent a period of three (3) days within which to fully implement the writ.

In his Answer dated 10 March 2004, respondent questions Atty. Rodriguez's representation as there was no attached Special Power of Attorney issued by Pasion in his favor. He acknowledges having received P20,000.00 but explains that he submitted a computation because of Atty. Rodriguez's insistence. Respondent denies having promised that the demolition would be effected on 26 October 2003. On that date, he allegedly informed Atty. Rodriguez of the contents of a letter from the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PGUP) addressed to Judge Mangino urging that the defendants be given a forty-five (45)-day grace period so that the local government unit can implement a resettlement package as provided under the Urban Development and Housing Act. Consequently, the delay in the demolition was clearly beyond his control. Further, the defendants had already vacated the land subject matter of the case as per Sheriff's Return dated 12 February 2004.

In its Report dated 18 October 2004, the OCA recommends that the case be dismissed for lack of merit considering that the writ had been fully implemented. The OCA notes that there was a request from the PGUP and the concerned local officials to defer the demolition because of the Christmas season. There was an assurance from the affected families that they would voluntarily vacate their premises on 4 January 2004 and that they were willing to execute individual waivers to guarantee their promise to vacate. The defendants did vacate the lands they were occupying as stated in the Sheriffs Report dated 26 January 2004. The Sheriffs Return and the Certification both dated 12 February 2004 show that respondent had duly placed the plaintiff in possession of the property. Atty. Rodriguez himself certified that he accepted possession, occupation and ownership of the subject property. Atty. Rodriguez did not refute respondent's allegations in the latter's Answer.

Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Danilo U. Ibarra, Sheriff III, MTCC-OCC, Tarlac City, is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE