ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[OCA I.P.I. No. 04-2050-P.� July 6, 2005]
TIPON vs. ARAGONES
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 6 2005.
OCA I.P.I. No. 04-2050-P (Re: Ross S. Tipon vs. Bienvenido C. Aragones (Branch 3), Mariano L. Rosuena (Branch 1), and Jesus Nazario T. Espiritu (Branch 4) all Sheriff III, MTCC, Baguio City.)
This refers to a complaint filed by Ross S. Tipon against Sheriffs Mariano L. Rosuena, Bienvenido C. Aragones and Jesus Nazario T. Espiritu, of the Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City, for Grave Abuse of Authority, Illegal Seizure and Grave Coercion relative to the implementation of the writ of execution issued by Judge Danilo P. Camacho in Civil Case No. 11095 entitled, Cynthia Donato-Boyes, et al. v. Ross Tipon.
Tipon was the defendant in the abovecited case for unlawful detainer. On 05 October 2000, Acting Presiding Judge Evangeline C. Cuilan of Branch I of the Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendant (herein complainant) Tipon, ordering him to vacate the leased premises and to pay the plaintiffs the following amounts:
1. P28,000.00
as accumulated unpaid rentals;
2. P4,000.00 as monthly
compensation for the use of the premises from October 16, 1999 up to the time
defendant actually vacates the property;
3. P10,000.00 as attorney's
fees; and
4. Costs of this suit.
Pursuant to the said Judgment which has become final, a Writ of Execution was issued on 23 January 2003.
Tipon alleges that at about 9:00 a.m. of 18 June 2004, he admitted, through his back door, Mariano L. Rosuena, who had introduced himself as a Sheriff and inquired what properties he owned. Tipon supposedly showed him a lease contract which stated that the apartment was furnished with appliances. Rosuena demanded a copy of said document, arguing that the same could be faked by anybody. Tipon refused to give him what he claimed was his only copy. However, Rosuena did not listen to his explanations but instead mumbled unflattering remarks about his conduct. Tipon claims he then stepped outside his front door to pacify Rosuena, and advised the latter to follow suit so the apartment could be locked. At this point, Rosuena started screaming that nobody can make him step outside.
Rosuena then called for help. Seven men arrived, including two uniformed policemen and two Sheriffs later identified as Bienvenido C. Aragones and Jesus Nazario T. Espiritu. Tipon claims Aragones and Espiritu did not introduce themselves when they barged in, displayed a marked contempt for the lease contract he showed them, and proceeded to lay their hands on his television set, roughly pulling out the cable connection. Upon advise of his lawyer whom he called up, Tipon yielded his TV set to respondents in order to buy peace.
Later, according to Tipon, his Toshiba Notebook Computer showed damage on its screen in the form of permanent horizontal lines, and his microwave oven no longer functioned. He asserts that he earlier saw Rosuena fiddling with his Toshiba Notebook Computer, slamming its cover when he could not understand how it operated, and punching the buttons of the microwave oven.
In their Consolidated Comments dated 10 December 2004, the respondents claim that Tipon made untruthful and misleading statements in his complaint.
They assert that Civil Case No. 11095 was decided on 5 October 2000, with the writ of execution issued on 23 January 2003. In connection with the enforcement of the said writ, Rosuena made three separate reports, the second of which narrates the true account of the incident referred to in the instant complaint.
Specifically, Rosuena maintains he implemented the writ of execution at about 8:30 a.m. of 18 June 2004. As Tipon refused to pay the judgment obligation stated in the writ, Rosuena informed him that he would have to levy on the personal properties inside his apartment which were not exempt from execution. Complainant invoked a "Contract of Lease" which stated that all the properties inside his rented unit belonged to his lessor, Jose Estacio. When Rosuena asked for a copy of the "Contract of Lease" to verify if the television set did belong to the lessor, Tipon refused to furnish him a copy. This prompted Rosuena to ask Process Server Jimmy Siapno, who was with him at that time, to look for the lessor, Jose Estacio, to verify the ownership of the TV set. As soon as Siapno left, Tipon supposedly went ballistic and padlocked his unit, detaining Rosuena inside. Despite Rosuena's repeated entreaties, complainant only opened the padlock after the former informed him that he would call his co-workers for help.
According to Rosuena, the TV set was levied upon only after Sheriffs Aragones and Espiritu arrived with two uniformed police officers. Aragones and Espiritu alleged that they saw Rosuena still trembling in a state of shock.
Finally, respondents assert that the instant complaint is not the only one filed by complainant based on the same incident. The latter also filed a complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City for Grave Coercion. For his part, Rosuena also filed a criminal complaint against herein complainant for Illegal Detention. The records show, however, that Acting Baguio City Prosecutor Junius Dalaten DISMISSED both complaints in a Joint Resolution of 23 August 2004. Tipon sought a review of this dismissal, Rosuena did not.
On 03 May 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit for the following reasons:
. . . [T]he foregoing accusations are unsubstantiated. First of all, complainant failed to mention the supposed unflattering remarks uttered by respondent Rosuena. Thus, we cannot speculate on whether or not they actually invite discipline. Besides, we give credence to complainant's claim since he himself asserted that it was a mere "mumbling" [1] cralaw and "about [complainant's] conduct." [2] cralaw Second, the alleged damages to his property, if true, cannot automatically be attributed to respondents. The real nature of the damages and when they were supposedly sustained were not disclosed. No conclusion can be made that the same were caused by respondents' stroking, handling, trying the buttons, or whatever. Third, the alleged damages themselves were not substantially proven. All that complainant adduced were a supposed receipt [3] cralaw [the source of which was not disclosed and the signatory thereof not even identified], and an e-mail [4] cralaw [containing an assessment of damage based only on the disclosures of complainant, sans actual inspection of the devise itself]. Both documents are not notarized and apparently are self-serving. What remains is only complainant's allegation finding fault in respondents. Fourth, complainant's bare assertions do not suffice to establish responsibility on the part of respondents. Not only were the supposed damages and their alleged causes not established but the credibility of the instant complaint itself is also suspect.
Finally, complainant's allegations are conflicting. While he maintains that the properties in his rented unit were not his [thus he insists that they could not be levied upon], he is now crying foul for certain damages allegedly inflicted on two of his appliances. While he adamantly disowned the properties, and premised said claim on the supposed "Contract of Lease," he refused to give respondents a copy of the same upon demand. His ratiocination that it was his only copy cannot be countenanced since the same could be easily photocopied. Moreover, his evasive actuation when Sheriff Rosuena summoned the lessor [the alleged owner of the properties] to verify the real ownership of the TV set belies his own claim.
Well entrenched is the principle that in administrative proceedings, complainant must prove, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint. In the instant case, respondents enjoy a presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties. Their account of the incident is borne by: Sheriff Reports; the Inventory of Levied Properties bearing complainant's signature; as well as the Receipt issued by the evidence custodian of Baguio City Police Office, acknowledging custody of the destroyed padlock (YALE brand) from complainant's apartment.
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the onus of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. [5] cralaw Substantial evidence has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. [6] cralaw Complainant miserably failed to discharge this burden. Respondents must, perforce, be exonerated.
Finding the recommendation to be in keeping with law and the facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against respondents Mariano L. Rosuena, Bienvenido C. Aragones and Jesus Nazario T. Espiritu, in their capacity as Sheriffs of the Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City is thus DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw "Mumbling" means inarticulate, incoherent, faltering, or to murmur, speak unclearly, speak softly, or burble.
[2] cralaw Par. 3, Affidavit Complaint of complainant: It was directed on complainant's conduct; not on his person.
[3] cralaw Annex "3," Affidavit Complaint of complainant.
[4] cralaw Annex "4," Affidavit Complaint of complainant.
[5] cralaw De Guzman v. Dy, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1755, 03 July 2003, 405 SCRA 311.
[6] cralaw Cebu Institute of Technology v. Minister of Labor, G.R. No. L-50238, 29 March 1982, 113 SCRA
257.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
