ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[
MELGAR vs. LEYVA
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 27 2005.
A.M. No. P-05-1951 (Reynold D. Melgar vs. Isaias E. Leyva.)
In an affidavit-complaint dated February 19, 2004, Reynold D. Melgar charged Isaias E. Leyva, Sheriff IV, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Antipolo City before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon with abuse of authority and oppression relative to the implementation of the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 2866, entitled "Raul Boncan, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Felix Melgar, Defendant." [1] cralaw Subsequently, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon referred the instant complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of this Court for proper disposition.
Herein complainant alleges that: he is the son of Felix M. Melgar, the titular head and founder of the Iglesia sa Dios Espiritu Santo and the defendant in Civil Case No. 2866, an action for ejectment filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal; a decision was rendered in said case wherein the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs; subsequently, the trial court issued writs of execution and demolition; said writs were erroneously implemented by Sheriff Leyva and his assistants when they demolished the administration building of the Blessed Virgin Mary District Church which is not owned by his father and is not included as a subject matter of Civil Case No. 2866; the demolition was executed in an inhuman and barbaric manner and in wanton disregard for the health and safety of Felix Melgar who was then undergoing a dialysis session when said demolition was carried out. [2] cralaw
Respondent filed his Comment denying that he erroneously implemented the writ of demolition issued by the trial court. He asserts that the administration building of the Blessed Virgin Mary District Church was the proper subject of the writ of demolition and that said structure was torn down because it was erected on the property subject matter of Civil Case No. 2866. Respondent maintains that he is simply performing his duty as a sheriff. He contends that when a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of instructions, to proceed with reasonable promptness to execute the writ according to its mandate, since disobedience to a court order may render him liable for contempt. [3] cralaw
In its report dated November 9, 2004, the OCA found that complainant failed to substantiate his charges against respondent. [4] cralaw Accordingly, the OCA recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. [5] cralaw
In a Resolution dated January 24, 2005, this Court directed that the instant complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and required the parties to manifest if they are willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed. [6] cralaw
In separate Manifestations, both complainant and respondent indicated their willingness to submit the instant case for resolution based on the pleadings filed. [7] cralaw
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that respondent committed the act complained of rests on the complainant. [8] cralaw He must be able to show this by substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. [9] cralaw Failing this, the complaint must be dismissed.
In the instant case, complainant alleges that respondent is criminally and administratively liable for having illegally demolished the administration building of the Blessed Virgin Mary District Church when, in fact, said structure is not within the premises of the property subject of the litigation in Civil Case No. 2866. However, complainant failed to substantiate his allegation. The affidavits of a certain Josephlin P. Tacal and one Pablito V. Lastimosa submitted as evidence by complainant simply affirmed the allegations in the latter's complaint without stating any additional fact to prove that respondent was indeed mistaken in demolishing the building subject of the present complaint. Where the affiant did not appear, or was not presented during the administrative investigation to identify his sworn statement or affidavit, said statement or affidavit is hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. [10] cralaw An affidavit is hearsay unless the affiant is presented for cross-examination. [11] cralaw
It is true that Tacal attached to his affidavit a sketch which he prepared to indicate that the demolished structure is not adjacent to the property litigated in Civil Case No. 2866. However, we cannot rely on this sketch as it is simply a drawing made by Tacal and there is no supporting evidence to prove that it accurately reflects the location of the disputed properties. Neither is there any proof to show that such sketch is part of the evidence presented in Civil Case No. 2866. There is not even evidence to show that Tacal is an engineer, surveyor or a person competent to prepare such a sketch.
Complainant also failed to present competent evidence to prove his contention that respondent proceeded with the demolition despite pleas for him to allow the completion of the dialysis session of complainant's father.
Respondent enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties. This is in consonance with the provisions of Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court. [12] cralaw The burden of overcoming this presumption by contrary evidence lies in the shoulders of complainant. We agree with the OCA that the allegations in the affidavit of complainant and his witnesses cannot overcome the presumption that respondent's official duty had been regularly performed. [13] cralaw In the absence of any other evidence to overcome this presumption, the same must stand.
We reiterate the settled principle that this Court shall never tolerate or condone any conduct, act or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability or diminish the people's faith in the judiciary. [14] cralaw However, when an administrative charge against a court employee holds no basis whatsoever in fact or in law, this Court will not hesitate to protect the innocent court employee against any groundless accusation that trifles with judicial processes.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint is hereby DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. [15] cralaw
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 2.
[2] cralaw Ibid.
[3] cralaw Id., p. 52.
[4] cralaw Id., p. 58.
[5] cralaw Ibid.
[6] cralaw Id., p. 60.
[7] cralaw Id., pp. 61and 64.
[8] cralaw Gotgotao vs. Millora, A.M. P-05-2005, June 8, 2005.
[9] cralaw Ibid.
[10] cralaw Melchor vs. Gironella, G.R. No. 151138, February 16, 2005.
[11] cralaw Valenzuela vs. Bellosillo, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1241, January 20, 2000, 322 SCRA 537, 544.
[12] cralaw Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. - The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
.
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
[13] cralaw R. Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111187, February 1, 1995, 241 SCRA 77, 81.
[14] cralaw Sarmiento vs. Salamat, A.M. No. P-01-1501, September 4, 2001, 364 SCRA 301, 310.
[15] cralaw Ibid.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
