ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2308-P. September 6, 2006]

CIPRIANO PUYO v. SHERIFFS JOHNSON T. FAMADOR (OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT), VICENTE T. TIU (BRANCH 2) AND ARCHIBALD C. VERGA (BRANCH 33), ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BUTUAN CITY

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 6, 2006

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2308-P (Cipriano Puyo v. Sheriffs Johnson T. Famador (Office of the Clerk of Court), Vicente T. Tiu (Branch 2) and Archibald C. Verga (Branch 33), All of the Regional Trial Court, Butuan City .)

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

VERIFIED COMPLAINT of Cipriano G. Puyo against Sheriffs Johnson T. Famador, Vicente T. Tiu and Archibald C. Verga, all of the Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, for Grave Misconduct and Willful Disobedience of a Court Order, in relation to the implementation of the Writ of Possession issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Butuan City in SP Case No. 1432 (re: Rural Bank of Cabadbaran, Inc. v. Cristabel Orias assisted by spouse Cipriano Puyo for "Writ of Possession, Cancellation of Annotation, Break Order and Other Reliefs").

Complainant avers that on 28 July 2004, the RTC, Branch 3, Butuan City issued an order in SP Case No. 1432 directing the Provincial Sheriff of Agusan del Norte and City Sheriff of Butuan City to hold in abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession pending the resolution of the "Motion to Hold in Abeyance the execution of the Writ of Possession" filed by PAO Atty. Isabel Corazon B. Cabuga-Plaza. However, in spite of the court order, respondents intentionally and willfully proceeded to implement the writ of possession.

Complainant accuses respondents of failure to faithfully observe their duty as sheriffs and officers of the court. He asserts that being officers of the court, respondents must be circumspect and proper in their behavior. He submits that, by not following the order of the court, they had offended the integrity and dignity of the court and may be held liable for improper conduct or disobedience to a court order.

JOINT COMMENT of respondents denying the accusations against them. Respondents claim that the order dated 28 July 2004 was served to the Office of the Clerk of Court on 3 August 2004. On said date, the act sought to be enjoined had become fait accompli as they already left their station to turnover the possession of the property to the petitioner. They also aver that when the "hold-in-abeyance" order was issued by the court on 28 July 2004, the Writ of Possession was already partially implemented although complainant did not acknowledge receipt of the same, as according to him, he filed a "Motion for New Trial and a Motion to Disqualify Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzalez".

Respondents assert that they have not personally received a copy of the order even up to the filing of their Comment, although they became aware of the court order on 2 September 2004, when complainant filed a "Motion to Declare the Implementing Team of Sheriff Johnson T. Famador be Held in Contempt of Court" and they verified the record of the case.

Respondents aver that had they been served with a copy of the order or had they even had knowledge of the existence of the same, it would be very unlikely for them to physically turnover the property to the petitioner. They allege that they informed complainant who was present at the turnover that they would stop the implementation of the writ if he would show them a copy of the order, but complainant failed to present a copy.

MANIFESTATION of complainant averring that respondents' Comment produces no legal effect, because it is unsigned, it has no address, it is not under oath nor is it verified or accompanied by affidavit. He also asserts that respondents' Comments are mere self-serving and alibis.

Complainant notes that it is improbable that a copy of the Order of 28 July 2005 was not timely served to respondents, considering that their offices are inside the court building and adjacent to each other, while the counsel of the parties, whose offices are kilometers away from the court, were already served their copies.

Complainant alleges that he 'invited' respondent to see Atty. Mary Francis A. Manug-Daquipil, Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 3, Butuan City, to verify his allegation that he had already filed a motion for new trial as well as to be guided and enlightened on what to do with the writ, but respondents were too arrogant to heed his advice. He added that Judge Francisco F. Maclang tolerated respondents' misconduct because he has not yet acted on the motion [to] cite respondents in contempt of court for disregarding the court order of 28 July 2004.

REJOINDER to complainant's Manifestation. Respondents averred that the counsel of the parties received their copies of the Order of 28 July 2004 on 3 August 2004 and 13 August 2004.

Respondents assert that complainant's allegations and manifestations should not be given weight and credence as they are not supported by evidence and facts, especially specific dates and time. In any event, granting without admitting that complainant's allegations are true, their failure to receive a copy of the order is not of their own doing and contrary to complainant's contention, the court had already resolved his "Motion to Cite Implementing Sheriffs".

REPLY TO REJOINDER of complainant asserting that the facts are clear and the more alibis respondents submit, the more the tardiness and ineffectiveness of work system in the court shows. He contends that the Omnibus Resolution dated 17 September 2004 is replete with errors and the order is evidence that the court below is biased and prejudiced in favor of the respondents.

Complainant further claims that respondents made allegations prejudicial to his reputation, which entails disciplinary action.

OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION: By indorsement dated 13 October 2005, this Office forwarded to the Office of the Bar Confidant, for its appropriate disposition, a copy of the Complaint with respect to respondent Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzales, considering that he is not under the administrative jurisdiction of this Office.

OBSERVATION/DISCUSSION: The Complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit, there being no basis in fact and in law to hold respondents liable for the charges leveled against them. The record does not support the imputations of complainant against herein respondents. On the contrary, they reveal that respondents have not exceeded their authority or committed acts in violation of the rules and their sworn duty, nor did they disobey a lawful order of the court.

The documents adduced by the parties clearly show that there was no legal impediment to the enforcement of the Writ of Possession at the time of its implementation. The order of 28 July 2004 which directed the Offices of the Provincial Sheriff and City Sheriff to hold in abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession was already moot and academic when a copy thereof was served to the offices concerned, the action sought to be suspended having been already carried out and consummated by the implementing sheriffs.

It should also be noted that the filing of a motion to suspend the enforcement of the writ of possession per se does not serve to bar its implementation. 'In several cases, the Court has ruled that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial function. x x x Therefore, the issuance of the writ of possession being ministerial in character, the implementation of such writ by the sheriff is likewise ministerial'. (Spouses Victor Ong and Grace Tiu Ong vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 121494, June 8, 2000) Respondents do not have any discretion whether or not to enforce the writ of possession founded alone on the information given to them by complainant that he filed before the court a motion to suspend its implementation.

Additionally, it may be pointed out that complainant had judicial recourse, i.e., he could have filed a motion for cancellation of the writ of possession. He could also have applied for judicial relief on the issues he raised against the Omnibus Order dated 17 September 2004, which are clearly judicial in nature. Finally, assuming there are flaws in the system which caused the delay in the service of the court order, they cannot be ascribed to the respondents.

RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the instant matter 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 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 Sheriffs Johnson T. Famador (Office of the Clerk of Court), Vicente T. Tiu (Branch 2) and Archibald C. Verga (Branch 33), all of the Regional Trial Court Butuan City is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

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

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com