ChanRobles Virtual law Library

A.M. No. P-05-1956. August 23, 2006]

UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION (URSUMCO), REPRESENTED BY RENATO P. CABATI v. NORBERTO V. LACORTE, SHERIFF, RTC, BRANCH 45, BAIS CITY

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 23, 2006

A.M. No. P-05-1956 (formerly OCA IPI No. 04-1889-P) (Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation (URSUMCO), Represented by Renato P. Cabati v. Norberto V. Lacorte, Sheriff, RTC, Branch 45, Bais City.)

Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

This complies with the Court's Resolution dated February 8, 2006 referring to this Office for evaluation, report and recommendation the Investigation Report dated December 28, 2005 of Executive Judge Ismael O. Baldado, RTC, Bais City.

Records shows that a letter-complaint was filed by Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation (URSUMCO) through its General Manager, Renato P. Cabati against Sheriff Norberto V. Lacorte, RTC, Branch 45, Bais City for violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Complainant alleges that when respondent sheriff implemented the Writ of Execution in NLRC Case No. V-000070-99 (Abrio, et al. v. URSUMCO), the sheriff exhibited partiality and allowed unwarranted advantages to plaintiffs, to the prejudice of URSUMCO. Respondent sheriff, without notice and not armed with a break open order, entered URSUMCO's compound, seized four (4) crane trucks, destroyed the compound's gate and had the vehicles parked at an unsecured place near his house. Thereafter, respondent sheriff conducted the auction sale of the trucks without notice to URSUMCO and despite its protest.

In his Comment, respondent sheriff explained that on November 4, 2003, he tendered a copy of the writ to complainant's secretary because complainant refused to receive the same. Since URSUMCO failed to pay the judgment award due plaintiffs after the lapse of seven (7) days, he proceeded to URSUMCO's compound on November 13, 2004 accompanied by two policemen, and levied upon four (4) crane trucks of URSUMCO leaving the corresponding receipts with the guard. He then ordered the drivers of the trucks to drive the vehicles to Calasga-an, Bais City there being no warehouse at Bais City. Notices of public auction of the trucks were posted at the City Hall of Bais City, Satellite Market, Pedicab Terminal and RTC, Bais City. Respondent also furnished the parties with such notice. Without any objection or opposition received from either party, he proceeded with the auction sale on December 4, 2003. The sale was confirmed by NLRC.

Finding the explanation of respondent sheriff satisfactory, then Court Administrator, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. recommended the dismissal of the complaint. However, the Court's Second Division, in its Resolution of January 31, 2005, directed that the complaint be docketed as a regular administrative matter and that it be referred to the Executive Judge of RTC, Bais City for investigation, report and recommendation.

In his Report, Executive Judge Ismael O. Baldado, RTC, Bais City recommended the dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The investigating judge stated that during the investigation, complainant admitted having received a copy of the writ of execution but did not respond to the writ; the security guard testified that the writ was not "thrown" to him as alleged by complainant but was handed to him by the sheriff without force or threat; Sheriff Lacorte waited outside the gate while the trucks were driven out of the compound; at the time one of the trucks rammed the gate, Sheriff Lacorte had already left the premises; Sheriff Lacorte left the receipts for the trucks with the guard; the place where the sheriff parked the vehicles was the safest and most secured place; and that the auction sale was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

We agree with the findings and recommendation of the investigating judge. Apart from the bare allegations of complainant, no proof was adduced to establish the charge that respondent violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and afforded unwarranted advantages to the plaintiffs-employees of URSUMCO. The security guard on duty at the time of the levy belied complainant's allegations that respondent barged in and seized the trucks without notice and permission. On the other hand, respondent sheriff submitted his Sheriff's Return, Affidavit of Posting of Notice of the Auction Sale and Notice of Sale on Execution to URSUMCO through Renato P. Cabati. He also surrendered Acknowledgment Receipts for the levied trucks and Sheriff's Deed of Sale confirmed by NLRC, all of which prove that the execution, levy and auction sale were done consistent with the requirements under Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

A sheriff's duty in the execution of the writ is purely ministerial and he has to execute the writ strictly to the letter. He has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. He has to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to implement it in accordance with its mandate. [Dela Cruz, et al. v. Bato, et al., A.M. No. P-05-1959, February 15, 2005 ].

Respondent, by the terms of the writ of execution, had the authority to satisfy the judgment award against the movable or immovable properties of URSUMCO not exempt from execution.

In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that this administrative complaint against Sheriff Norberto [V.] Lacorte, RTC, Branch 45, Bais City be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.

The Supreme Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees of the judiciary, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. ^[1] cralaw

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Sheriff Norberto V. Lacorte is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Capacete v. Arellano, A.M. No. P-03-1700, February 23, 2004, 423 SCRA 323, 328.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011