ChanRobles Virtual law Library

OCA-IPI No. 05-2190-P. July 3, 2006]

DANILO LEGAL v. SHERIFF ELWIN D.S. BACHO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 129, CALOOCAN CITY, AND SHERIFF ERIC D.S. BACHO, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 50, CALOOCAN CITY

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 3, 2006 .

OCA-IPI No. 05-2190-P (Danilo Legal v. Sheriff Elwin D.S. Bacho, Regional Trial Court, Branch 129, Caloocan City, and Sheriff Eric D.S. Bacho, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 50, Caloocan City)

Under consideration is the administrative complaint ^[1] cralaw dated 26 April 2005 filed by Danilo Legal (complainant) charging Sheriff Elwin D.S. Bacho, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 129, Caloocan City and his brother, Sheriff Eric D.S. Bacho, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 50, Caloocan City (respondents) with grave abuse of authority and/or discretion and grave misconduct relative to the implementation of a writ of execution against complainant's property in Civil Case No. 23907 entitled Bienvenida C. Carreon v. Gilbert Legal and Antonia Legal, for unlawful detainer (ejectment case).

Complainant avers that on 1 June 2004, respondents together with a group of men, allegedly all court employees, as well as the plaintiffs in the ejectment case, went to his house and forcibly took therefrom personal properties on the strength of a writ of execution issued by Judge Esteban Gonzaga of MeTC Br. 50. He contends that the respondents entered the wrong property in that the one the plaintiffs claim measures only 36 square meters (sqm.) whereas his property measures 52 sqm. based on the technical description and subdivision plan in his possession. Thus, he immediately locked the door of his house to prevent respondents from illegally entering his premises. The latter then threatened to have him and his lawyer arrested for hindering the implementation of the writ. He further alleges that he later saw respondents receiving several thousands of cash money from plaintiff who instructed respondents to deliver it to Judge Gonzaga. Moreover, he claims he lost some valuable appliances, jewelry and cash amounting to P10,000.00 after respondents left his house. Consequently, he filed a criminal complaint for robbery, grave threats, qualified trespass to dwelling and grave oral defamation against respondents.

In his Comment ^[2] cralaw dated 7 June 2005, respondent Elwin D.S. Bacho denies complainant's allegations contending that he was not among those who participated in the implementation of the writ on 1 June 2004 as he was in his office at RTC Br. 129 the whole day as attested to by his colleagues, Teodorico B. Ibas and Melinda M. Dino. ^[3] cralaw He admits that he was with his brother on the day the latter served the Notice to Vacate on complainant for the reason that he was not fully familiar with some areas in Caloocan. He prays that the complaint be dismissed considering that the accusations therein are unsubstantiated and intended only as an act of reprisal against him and his family when complainant lost in the ejectment case.

Meanwhile, in his Comment ^[4] cralaw dated 30 June 2005, respondent Eric D.S. Bacho avers that the ejectment suit was decided against complainant's parents, Gilbert and Antonia Legal, on 30 June 1999 and a writ of execution was issued in favor of the plaintiffs on 6 August 1999. However, defendants therein filed motion after motion in order to delay the execution of the decision. It was only on 24 May 2004 when Judge Gonzaga finally ordered respondent to enforce the [second alias] writ of execution and to coordinate with the proper authorities. Thereafter, he served upon complainant a Notice to Vacate four (4) times which the latter and his wife refused to receive. ^[5] cralaw He then went to complainant's house on 1 June 2004 accompanied by barangay authorities and some Caloocan Police officers in order to enforce the writ. He levied on some personal properties subject of execution in order to satisfy the judgment in the ejectment case, as evidenced by the Notice of Levy and Sheriff's Sale ^[6] cralaw and the inventory ^[7] cralaw of personal properties levied. He opines that complainant's contentions are unfounded as he merely performed a ministerial duty and, thus, invokes the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.

In its Report ^[8] cralaw dated 4 May 2006, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the case be dismissed for lack of merit. The OCA noted that there is nothing on record to support complainant's allegations of grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct against respondents. The OCA found, to wit:

As bourne out by the records of the case, complainant has been evicted from the subject property by virtue of the decision rendered by Judge Esteban Gonzaga, presiding judge of MeTC, Branch 50, Caloocan City, followed by the assailed writ of execution. In line with this, several notices among others (i.e. notice to vacate, notice of levy and sheriff's sale, notice of demolition) were duly sewed to herein complainant where it gave him the opportunity to peacefully vacate the subject property. However, the complainant instead of complying with the said notices, exercised hostile efforts to further delay the enforcement of the said writ of execution. As a result of his numerous fruitless efforts, now blames the respondents for the alleged abusive conduct and grave abuse of authority when the latter implemented the writ of execution. This Office believes that it is clearly unfair to put the blame on the respondents. Respondent Eric D.S. Bacho was exercising a mere ministerial duty. ^[9] cralaw

This Court finds the recommendation of the OCA to be in accordance with law and the facts of the case. The determination as to whether the complainant owns the subject property is beyond the scope of respondent's mandate as a sheriff. Respondent Eric D.S. Bacho had a ministerial duty to enforce the writ of execution. His duty was to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter and he had no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. ^[10] cralaw We find that he had performed his duties accordingly and thus is entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties in the absence of proof to the contrary. As correctly found by the OCA, no evidence was presented which would prove the charges imputed against him. Neither was there evidence against respondent Elwin D.S. Bacho that would merit an administrative sanction. The allegation of corruption where respondent Eric D.S. Bacho allegedly received money from the plaintiff to deliver to Judge Gonzaga is likewise baseless. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. ^[11] cralaw Here, complainant failed to discharge such burden. It must be stressed that this Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon erring court employees, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. ^[12] cralaw

WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Sheriff Elwin D.S. Bacho and Sheriff Eric D.S. Bacho is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The case is CLOSED and TERMINATED. (Velasco, J., no part due to prior action as Court Administrator.)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 2-34.

^[2] cralaw Id. at 39-42.

^[3] cralaw Id. at 42.

^[4] cralaw Id. at 44-86.

^[5] cralaw Id. at 64-67.

^[6] cralaw Id. at 69.

^[7] cralaw Id. at 71-72.

^[8] cralaw Id. at 87-94.

^[9] cralaw Id. at 93.

^[10] cralaw De La Cruz v. Bato, A.M. No. P-05-1959, February 15, 2005, 451 SCRA 330, 336.

^[11] cralaw Morales, Sr. v. Judge Dumlao, 427 Phil. 56, 62 (2002).

^[12] cralaw De La Cruz v. Bato, supra note 10, at 337.

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