ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2009-P. August 9, 2006]
CATHYLENE D. ANGELES AND MARINELLA T. DI�O v. CLERK OF COURT II LYDIA T. CASAS, SHERIFF III RONALD E. LAMPITOC, JR., COURT STENOGRAPHER II CRISTINA E. LAMPITOC, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 46, PASAY CITY AND SHERIFF III RICARDO E. LAMPITOC, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, PASAY CITY
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 9, 2006
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2009-P (Cathylene D. Angeles and Marinella T. Di�o v. Clerk of Court II Lydia T. Casas, Sheriff III Ronald E. Lampitoc, Jr., Court Stenographer II Cristina E. Lampitoc, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 46, Pasay City and Sheriff III Ricardo E. Lampitoc, Metropolitan Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Pasay City)
The instant administrative matter refers to the charges of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against respondents relative to Criminal Case Nos. 02-346 to 352 for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Bella I. Villanueva." Presiding Judge Normando T. Garcia had acquitted the accused therein for insufficiency of evidence, but directed her to replace the value of the checks. [1] cralaw Upon motion of private complainant, the court ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. [2] cralaw
The allegations in the Complaint [3] cralaw dated August 30, 2004 were summarized by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) as follows:
Complainants requested the respondents to serve the writ of execution for several times. Instead of doing so, respondents indorsed it to the Sheriff of Tanza, Cavite who refused to act on it claiming that they have no sheriff thereat since they are only under the RTC of Trese Martirez, Cavite. In turn, the Sheriff of RTC of Trese Martirez, Cavite informed the complainants that the indorsement is improper.
Complainants also accuse the respondents of arrogance.
In their Joint Comment, respondents averred that pursuant to SC Administrative Circular No. 12, the Writ of Execution was indorsed to the Sheriff of Tanza, Cavite. However, the said Sheriff refused to accept the writ. Respondents pointed out that, contrary to the allegations against them, complainants were properly entertained, and that a special sheriff was appointed by the trial court upon the request of the offended party.
Pursuant to the Resolution of the Court dated October 3, 2005, the matter was referred to Executive Judge Caridad H. Grecia-Cuerdo, Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, for investigation, report and recommendation.
In her Report dated December 23, 2005, the Executive Judge stated that the case was set for hearing twice (on November 18, 2005 and December 6, 2005); only respondents appeared on both occasions. She stressed that the Notices and Orders sent to complainants were returned unserved as they no longer reside at their given address. Thus, the Executive Judge recommended that the administrative case be dismissed "since complainants failed to substantiate their complaint."
The Court, thereafter, resolved to refer the matter to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation. In its Memorandum dated May 8, 2006, the OCA, likewise, recommended that "the complaint against Clerk of Court II Lydia T. Casas, Sheriff III Ronald E. Lampitoc, Jr., Sheriff III Ricardo E. Lampitoc, and Court Stenographer II Cristina E. Lampitoc, be dismissed; however, Clerk of Court II Lydia T. Casas should be warned and ordered to he more circumspect in the performance of her duties."
The Court agrees with the recommendation of the Executive Judge and the OCA that this case should be dismissed.
It is settled that in administrative proceedings, complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint. Such evidence must be competent and derived from direct knowledge. [4] cralaw Charges based on mere conjectures and suppositions cannot be given credence. [5] cralaw In cases where complainants have not come forward lo present evidence, public records of indubitable integrity may be considered to support the charges. [6] cralaw In this case, however, there is no reason to hold respondents administratively liable. We note with approval the following observations of the OCA:
As noted by the investigating judge, it appears that complainants moved out of their residence without leaving any information as to their new address. Thus, the notices sent to them were returned to the court unserved. We are left with no alternative but to conclude that they are no longer interested in proving their accusations.
Indeed, this lack of interest does not have the legal effect of exonerating the respondents from the disciplinary action, nor operate to divest this Court with jurisdiction lo determine the truth behind the matter stated in the complaint. The issue in administrative cases is not whether complainant has a cause of action against the respondent, but whether the employees have breached the norms and standard of the judiciary. In this case, however, there is no sufficient cause to hold any of the respondents administratively liable.
Relying on Administrative Circular No. 12, GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURE IN THE SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF COURT WRITS AND PROCESSES IN THE REORGANIZED COURTS, dated 1 October 1995, respondent Clerk of Court Casas endorsed (Annex "4" to the Comment) the Writ of Execution dated 19 July 2004 to the Clerk of Court and [Ex-Officio] Sheriff of the Municipal Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite, for execution. The Guidelines state:
1.����������� All Clerks of Court, who are also ex-officio Sheriffs, and/or their Deputy Sheriffs shall serve all court processes and execute all writs of their respective courts within their territorial jurisdiction;
2.����������� All Clerks of Court of the Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, and/or their Deputy Sheriffs shall serve all court processes and execute all writs of their respective courts within their territorial jurisdiction;
X X XX X XX X X
As the 19 July 2004 Writ of Execution was not specifically addressed to him, the sheriff of Cavite justifiably refused to honor the endorsement. Verily, Casas misinterpreted Administrative Circular No. 12 because what it provides is for the sheriff to whom the writ is addressed to notify in writing and coordinate with the sheriff of another territorial jurisdiction where the same is to be executed. Nothing is contained therein authorizing the former to delegate the execution of the writ to the latter.
Mistakes cannot be countenanced for the efficient administration of justice. However, we find the error on the part of respondent Casas short for a proper imposition of an administrative sanction. If at all, the error may well be considered unintentional and usual in the ordinary course of the heavy volume of official business. We also take into consideration that the instant administrative complaint against respondent Casas is the first in her sixteen (16) long years of service in the judiciary. Significantly, as it was only respondent Casas who caused the endorsement of the writ of execution, no fault can be attributed to respondent Sheriffs Ronald and Ricardo Lampitoc relative thereto. In any event, the trial court, upon request of the private complainant, appointed a special sheriff to execute the subject writ of execution.
As regards the allegation that respondents treated the complainants with arrogance, we find that the same is unsubstantiated. Other than self-serving statements, which were sufficiently denied by the respondents, complainants failed to adduce proofs that they were ill-treated by the respondents.
Considering the foregoing, the administrative charges against Clerk of Court II Lydia T. Casas, Sheriff III Ronald E. Lampitoc, Jr., Sheriff III Ricardo E. Lampitoc, and Court Stenographer II Cristina E. Lampitoc, are DISMISSED for lack of merit. Clerk of Court II Lydia T. Casas is REMINDED to be more circumspect in the performance of her duties.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA
ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo , pp. 31-45.
[2] cralaw Id. at 48.
[3] cralaw Id. at 1-11.
[4] cralaw See Urgent Appeal/Petition For Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Legaspi , 453 Phil. 459, 464 (2003).
[5] cralaw Cortes v. Chico-Nazario , A.M. No. SB-04-11-J, February 13, 2004, 422 SCRA 541, 550.
[6] cralaw See Anonymous Complaint Against Gibson A. Araula , A.M. No. 1571-CFI, February 7, 1978, 81 SCRA 483, 484.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
