ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1622-MTJ.� July 4, 2005]
WONG vs. RAMIZO
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 4 2005.
Adm. Matter OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1622-MTJ (Asuncion T. Wong vs. Judge Edwin B. Ramizo and Sheriff III Alvin A. Buencamino.)
For consideration is the Report [1] cralaw dated 12 April 2005 on the administrative matter submitted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
In a Sinumpaang Salaysay [2] cralaw dated 3 September 2004, Asuncion T. Wong has charged Judge Edwin B. Ramizo and unnamed Sheriffs of Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 53 of Caloocan City with abuse of authority relative to Civil Case No. 03-27133 entitled "Spouses John T. Wong and Leonora V. Wong v. Asuncion T. Wong" (the Civil Case). In her Karagdagan-Sinumpaang Salaysay [3] cralaw dated 28 September 2004, complainant identifies the concerned Sheriff as Alvin A. Buencamino, Sheriff III, MeTC, Branch 53, Caloocan City.
Complainant avers that on 30 August 2004, she received an unsigned order dated 20 August 2004 of Judge Ramizo, directing the issuance of the writ of execution in the case. She further states that on 2 September 2004, at 11:45 in the morning, three persons went to her place to serve a Notice to Vacate. One of the men introduced himself as Sheriff Alvin A. Buencamino of MeTC, Branch 53, Caloocan City. When she refused to sign the Notice to Vacate, which purportedly bore an erroneous address, the men left it with her and Sheriff Buencamino told her that she had five (5) days within which to vacate the premises.
Complainant assails the respondent Judge's order for the issuance of a writ of execution when there was still a pending appeal before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 121, Caloocan City and a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, docketed as C.A.-G.R. SP No. 81276.
In his Comment [4] cralaw dated 10 November 2004, Judge Ramizo claims that the original copy of his assailed order dated 20 August 2004 actually bore his signature. He stresses that his decision in the aforementioned case was already final and executory, as the appeal thereto was dismissed by the RTC, Branch 121, Caloocan City; while the petition for certiorari was dismissed by the Twelfth (12th) Division of the Court of Appeals in a decision promulgated on 13 August 2004. He asserts that he decided the case based on the merits, applying pertinent laws and jurisprudence, and that the allegation of partiality is bereft of factual and legal basis.
In his Comment [5] cralaw dated 17 November 2004, Sheriff Alvin A. Buencamino vehemently denies the charges against him. He claims that he was merely implementing and enforcing the Writ of Execution and Notice to Vacate which he personally served upon complainant who refused to acknowledge receipt thereof. As Sheriff, he maintains that it was his duty, in the absence of instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute the writ in accordance with its mandate.
In a Reply-Affidavit [6] cralaw dated 17 November 2004, complainant reiterates that the Writ of Execution and Notice to Vacate were issued prematurely, causing great injury and injustice to her. She cites Section 11, Rule 51, Rules of Court which expressly provides that judgments of the Court of Appeals shall be remanded to the lower court for execution ten (10) days after entry of judgment.
In its Report dated 12 April 2005, the OCA recommends the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. The OCA notes that the issuance of the Writ of Execution was in accordance with law, explaining that complainant not only failed to obtain an order to stay the execution of the decision pending appeal, but her appeal before the RTC, Branch 21 of Caloocan City was likewise dismissed rendering the judgment in the civil case immediately executory.
According to the OCA, the implementation of the Writ of Execution was in order. The Sheriff's role in the execution of the judgment is ministerial. He has no discretion whether or not to proceed with the execution. In the absence of any instruction to the contrary, it is the Sheriff's duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute a judgment according to its mandate. [7] cralaw
Finding no substantial evidence to support the complaint, the OCA concludes that the same must fail.
This Court finds the recommendation of the OCA to be in accordance with the law and the facts of the case. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. [8] cralaw In the instant case, complainant failed to substantiate his claims of abuse of authority. With the onus not met by complainant, respondents must be cleared of all the charges.
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Judge Edwin B. Ramizo and Sheriff III Alvin A. Buencamino of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 53, Caloocan City is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 80-82.
[2] cralaw Id. at 1.
[3] cralaw Id. at 10.
[4] cralaw Id. at 67-68.
[5] cralaw Id. at 43-50.
[6] cralaw Id. at 33.
[7] cralaw Paner v. Torres, 446 Phil. 508, 512-513 (2003).
[8] cralaw Morales, Sr. v. Judge Dumlao, 427 Phil. 56, 62 (2002).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
