ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1987-P. March 22, 2006]
VIRGILIA B. OCAMPO v. JOSE T. BASCAR, JR., SHERIFF III, MTCC, BR. 4, CEBU CITY
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated MAR. 22, 2006
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1987-P (Virgilia B. Ocampo v. Jose T. Bascar, Jr., Sheriff III, MTCC, Br. 4, Cebu City)
Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated January 11, 2006, to wit:
REASON FOR AGENDA : In a sworn complaint dated 20 July 2004, Virgilia B. Ocampo charges Jose T. Bascar, Jr., Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4, Cebu City, with abuse of authority, harassment and conduct unbecoming a public officer.
The complaint stemmed from the execution of the decision of Branch 4 in Civil Case No. R-46024 entitled Maria Vic Mancia-Hansley v. Wilfredo Brillantes and Members of His Family. Complainant, who claims to be the owner of the house located at No. 77 Sikatuna St., Barangay Day-as, Cebu City, accuses respondent sheriff of threatening her with arrest if she does not vacate her house as ordered by the court. She denies being a party to the case, and she claims that respondent sheriff could not show her a copy of the court order when she asked for it. Nonetheless, respondent sheriff, with the assistance of two uniformed policemen and ten other unidentified persons, proceeded with the execution of the decision by forcing their way into the house, and destroyed the mirror and dresser on the first floor, which he padlocked thereafter.
Respondent sheriff, in denying the accusation against him, recounted the antecedents of Civil Case No. R-46024. A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Wilfredo Brillantes and "Members of his family" by Maria Vic Mancia with Branch 4 for failure to pay the monthly rental of the house located at the corner of T. Padilla and Sikatuna St., Cebu City and owned by Mancia Brillantes, who is said to be the common-law husband of herein complainant, failed to submit a responsive pleading. A decision was thus rendered ordering Brillantes and the members of his family to immediately vacate the house. On the basis of the writ of execution, he issued a notice to vacate to Brillantes and "all members of (his) family and all persons occupying plaintiffs premises whose occupation and possession is derived from Brillantes," giving them one week from notice to vacate the premises. When the period elapsed without Brillantes and the members of his family vacating the premises, he attempted to enforce the writ but herein complainant blocked the main entrance and promptly closed the door before he could enter the premises. The following day, he returned to the premises, together with the representative of the plaintiff and three uniformed policemen, and asked permission from Brillantes and herein complainant to enter the premises. He then implemented the writ by causing the removal of the personal belongings of Brillantes and herein complainant from the premises, which was padlocked afterwards.
EVALUATION : The complaint should be dismissed.
Other than the bare allegations of complainant, records do not show that respondent sheriff exceeded, let alone abused, his authority in implementing the writ of execution. Due regard to the Rules was observed from the service of the writ of execution and notice to vacate the premises to the execution of the writ and the submission of the return thereof. Complainant was even given a period of one week to vacate the premises before she was finally evicted from the premises. Verily, the allegation of use of force against respondent sheriff in implementing the writ has no factual basis, as complainant failed to present proof to substantiate the same.
Complainant's claim that she is the owner of the house subject of the writ of execution cannot be given credence. If indeed she were the owner thereof, she would have presented proof of such ownership. She did not. That the allusion made by respondent sheriff to complainant as the common-law wife of Brillantes did not elicit a rejoinder from the complainant suggests that the same is true. Consequently, the common-law relationship between the two constitutes a basis for complainant to be covered by the writ of execution.
RECOMMENDATION : The foregoing circumstances considered, it is respectfully recommended that the complaint against Jose T. Bascar, Jr., Sheriff III, MTCC, Branch 4, Cebu City, be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
We agree with the foregoing recommendation. It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of substantiating the charges in the complaint falls on the complainant, [1] cralaw who must be able to prove such allegations with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent regularly performed his or her duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him or her should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge. [2] cralaw Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence. [3] cralaw In this case, there is no showing that respondent was remiss in the performance of his duties.
Indeed, while it is our duty to investigate and determine the truth behind every matter in complaints against court personnel, it is also our duty to protect and exonerate them from baseless administrative charges. [4] cralaw
The Court thus resolves to DISMISS the instant administrative complaint against Jose T. Bascar, Jr., for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Cortes v. Judge Agcaoili , 355 Phil. 848, 880 (1998), citing Lachica v. Flordeliza , 254 SCRA 278, 284, March 5, 1996.
[2] cralaw Sierra v. Judge Tiamson , A.M. No. RTJ-04-1847, July 21, 2004, 434 SCRA 560, 563.
[3] cralaw See Mayor Lambino v. Judge De Vera, 341 Phil. 62-66 (1997).
[4] cralaw Dr. Cruz v. Judge Iturralde , 450 Phil. 77, 88 (2003), citing Sarmiento v. Salamat , 416 Phil. 684 (2001).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
