ChanRobles Virtual law Library
OCA-IPI No. 05-2234-P. March 1, 2006]
LEONOR L. PAGADUAN v. FELIPE F. BORJA, SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, MANILA
Third Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated MAR. 1, 2006
OCA-IPI No. 05-2234-P (Leonor L. Pagaduan v. Felipe F. Borja, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 25, Manila)
Under consideration is the Verified Administrative Complaint [1] cralaw dated 14 June 2005 filed by Leonor L. Pagaduan (complainant) against Felipe F. Borja (respondent). Respondent is being charged with Grave Misconduct and Dereliction of Duty in relation to his implementation of a writ of execution in his capacity as Sheriff III of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25 (MeTC of Manila).
This complaint is an offshoot of the Decision in an ejectment case rendered on 14 March 2005 by the MeTC of Manila, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in review of all the foregoing [,] judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the defendant as follows: a) Ordering the defendant and all persons claiming rights under her to vacate the house located at 557 Antipolo Street, Sampaloc, Manila and turn-over possession thereof to the plaintiff; x x x. [2] cralaw
Armed with a writ of execution, respondent evicted the occupants of the property subject of the Decision. Complainant alleges that she and her family were coerced to vacate the premises despite the fact that she was in no way related to Marlyn Soriano - the defendant in the ejectment case - whether as lessee, sublessee, or a person claiming rights under said defendant. Complainant insists that the MeTC of Manila did not acquire jurisdiction over her person as she was not impleaded as a defendant in the ejectment case. She therefore contends that she is not bound by the judgment or the writ of execution issued pursuant thereto. Complainant further claims that respondent, in connivance with certain persons named LeiLani Mangalindan and Aurora Engson, took items belonging to her with a total value of P19,440.00 from the subject premises.
In his Comment [3] cralaw dated 2 September 2005, respondent contends that complainant was a sublessee of the contested property. As such, he argues that complainant was naturally affected by the judgment of eviction against the defendant/lessee in the ejectment case, irrespective of whether or not she was made a party thereto.
In its Report [4] cralaw dated 17 January 2006, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the case be dismissed for lack of merit.
The OCA remarked that an ejectment suit is binding on a person, even if not impleaded in the case, if he or she is (a) a trespasser, squatter, or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) a guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of the defendant; (c) a transferee pendente lite ; (d) a sublessee; (e) a co-lessee; or (6) a member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant. [5] cralaw It noted that complainant was not able to establish any right which would entitle her to further stay in the property, and that complainant even admitted to paying rentals, thereby confirming that she was either a sublessee or co-lessee bound by the judgment. The OCA added that respondent cannot be faulted for enforcing the writ of execution against complainant since the duty of a sheriff to execute a valid writ is ministerial and not discretionary.
On the matter of the claim that respondent robbed complainant of personal properties with a total value of P19,440.00, the OCA commented that complainant has the burden of proving her allegations by substantial evidence. It concluded that, in the absence of contrary evidence, the presumption that respondent regularly performed his duties outweighs petitioner's allegations.
Finding the OCA's recommendation to be in accord with law and the facts of the case on record, the Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the same. The administrative complaint against Sheriff Felipe F. Borja is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The case is CLOSED and TERMINATED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo , pp. 2-5
[2] cralaw Id. at 2.
[3] cralaw Id. at 11.
[4] cralaw Id. at 13-15.
[5] cralaw Citing Sunflower Neighborhood Association, et al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136274, 3 September 2003, 410 SCRA 318, 322.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
