ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[OCA IPI No. 04-1996-P.� July 4, 2005]

RE: ORTIGAS vs. ABADILLA

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 4 2005 .

OCA IPI No. 04-1996-P (Re: Ortigas & Co., Ltd. Partnership vs. Pedro Abadilla, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 119, Pasig City.)

For consideration is the administrative complaint dated 06 September 2004 filed by Rex C. Drilon II, Chief Operating Officer of Ortigas & Company, Limited Partnership (OCLP), charging Sheriff Pedro Abadilla with Abuse of Authority, relative to the latter's action in implementing the writ of execution issued by Branch 119 in Civil Case No. 0534-P.

In a decision dated 07 May 1991, this Court in G.R. No. 85494 and No. 85496 ruled in favor of one Ishwar Ramnani and against Choithram Ramnani and herein complainant OCLP. A motion for reconsideration was filed by defendant but was denied with finality by this Court and an entry of judgment was made on 20 March 1992.

In an effort to delay the case, Choithram filed before this Court a Petition for Certiorari (G.R. No. 105071) assailing this Court's 07 May 1991 decision as unconstitutional. The petition was denied by this Court for being in the nature of a 3^rd motion for reconsideration. This Court further directed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasay City, Branch 119 to compute the amount due Ishwar Ramnani and to execute the decision dated 07 May 1991.

On 22 April 2004, Judge Pedro De Leon Gutierrez of the RTC-Pasay, Branch 119 issued an Order fixing the liability of Choithram and OCLP in the amount of P420-million.

OCLP filed before the RTC, Branch 119, a motion for reconsideration of the Order dated 22 April 2004.

A writ of execution was issued on 19 July 2004 which was served by Sheriff Pedro Abadilla on 20 July 2004 together with a Notice of Demand to Pay signed by Sheriff Abadilla.

On 21 July 2004, OCLP filed a Manifestation and Motion with Judge Gutierrez to restrain the execution.

Nonetheless, respondent sheriff proceeded to implement the writ of execution giving rise to the instant administrative complaint.

Before this Court, complainant alleged that respondent was well aware of the pendency of its Motion for Reconsideration with Branch 119, including its Urgent Manifestation and Motion but despite such knowledge, respondent in bad faith continued to implement the writ of execution by levying several real properties belonging to it and garnishing its various bank accounts.

Complainant further avers that respondent's actions were premature considering that the latter was duly advised of the pending incidents before the two tribunals. Complainant maintains that respondent should have exercised "utmost circumspection" in causing the execution of the writ so that OCLP may not have suffered the unwarranted damages caused to it.

Respondent, in his COMMENT dated 13 October 2004, claimed that the implementation of the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 0534-P was made pursuant to the lawful orders of the trial court and that such execution was ordered by the Supreme Court in an En Banc Resolution dated 29 June 2004.

In addition, he states that he is merely a ministerial officer and that he has no discretion whether to execute a particular judgment or not. He added that he did not receive any order from the trial court (RTC) and/or the Supreme Court staying the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 0534-P. Hence, the mere filing of the motion for reconsideration and such other motions asking for the stay of execution of judgment did not prevent him from proceeding with the execution of the writ. According to respondent, complainant even participated during the auction sale of the levied properties conducted on 15 September 2004, as shown by the fact that it was the highest bidder. With respect to the garnished accounts and other notices of levy issued by him against the other properties of OCLP, respondent explains that he had already lifted the same upon the instance of the plaintiff thru counsel.

An AFFIDAVIT dated 7 October 2004 was filed by complainant withdrawing the complaint he filed against respondent Abadilla on the basis of the Supreme Court Resolution in G.R. Nos. 85496 and 105071, all dated 14 September 2004.

After study and evaluation, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended the dismissal of the complaint, relevant portion of which reads:

Perusal of the records of this case shows no compelling reason to hold respondent administratively liable for the charge filed against him. It appears that respondent acted within the parameters of his official duties and responsibilities as laid down in the Rules of Court. There is nothing in his complained acts that could constitute an administrative infraction.

We find credence in respondent's explanation that he proceeded with the implementation of the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 0534-P considering that the decision therein had long become final and executory and that no less than the Honorable Supreme Court had issued an Order directing the immediate and full implementation of the judgment in the subject civil case.

Although respondent was aware of the pendency of the various motions filed by complainant-company before the RTC and the Supreme Court, we agree with his contention that considering that there was no Order coming from the court and/or the Supreme Court staying the execution of the judgment in the case, he proceeded with the implementation of the writ of execution as it is his solemn duty to implement the same with celerity and promptness.

Assuming that indeed complainant-company incurred a lot of damages by reason of what [it calls] as premature implementation of the writ, the said damage(s) or even prejudice is but inevitable consequence of an adverse decision which was reached after a fair and valid evaluation of the issues of the case but respondent should not be faulted therefor.

As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Evangelista vs. Pensarga (242 SCRA 702), the sheriff is only a ministerial officer and his role in the execution of judgment is nothing more or nothing less than a pure ministerial duty. Sheriffs have no discretion whatsoever as to whether they should or they should not execute the judgment (Smith Bell and Co. vs. Saur, 96 SCRA 667).

Finally, the Affidavit dated 7 October 2004 executed by complainant herein has no bearing in the evaluation of the instant case for even in the absence of which, this case still cannot stand in view of the foregoing discussions.

Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and the facts of the case, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Sheriff Pedro Abadilla is hereby 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