ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA-IPI No. 06-22-SCC. September 18, 2006]

SAPHRALYN P. MINALANG v. JUDGE AMELADIN M. ALAUYA, 8th SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURT, MALABANG, LANAO DEL SUR AND CLERK OF COURT DATU ASHARY M. ALAUYA, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, MARAWI CITY

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated SEPT. 18, 2006 .

A.M. OCA-IPI No. 06-22-SCC (Saphralyn P. Minalang v. Judge Ameladin M. Alauya, 8th Shari'a Circuit Court, Malabang, Lanao del Sur and Clerk of Court Datu Ashary M. Alauya, Shari'a District Court, Marawi City)

Acting on the Report [1] cralaw of the Office of the Court Administrator dated August 15, 2006, to wit:

Filed before this Office on May 3, 2006 by Saphralyn P. Minalang is a complaint against Judge Ameladin M. Alauya, 8th Shari'a Circuit Court of Malabang, Lanao del Sur for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Grave Abuse of Discretion; and against Datu Ashary M. Alauya, Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Deputy Sheriff of Shari'a District Court, Marawi City for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Dereliction of duty. On July 17, 2006, Judge Alauya filed his comment to the complaint while Datu Ashary M. Alauya, filed his comment on July 20, 2006.

The complaint against Judge Alauya is basically anchored on : 1.) the presence of Judge Alauya on the hearing of the motion for issuance of Writ of Execution in Civil Case No. 2001-19 entitled "Saphralyn B. Minalang vs. Col. Alimosa M. Buale" for Partition of Properties upon Divorce, Recovery of unpaid Mahr and Custody of Minors, before the Second Shari'a Circuit Court, Marawi City presided over by Hon. Aboali J. Cali; and 2.) taking cognizance of Civil Case No. 05-02, entitled Alimosa M. Buale vs. "Saphralyn Minalang-Guiling, for Divestment of Parental Authority over the Persons and Properties of Minor Children by Reason of Marriage (Dispute Relative to Marriage) despite the objections of the herein complainant and rendering a decision divesting the latter of parental authority over the persons and properties of her minor children with Col. Alimosa Baule.

In his comment, Judge Alauya stressed that the reason for his presence at the Shari'a Circuit Court, Marawi City, which was sometime on March 3, 2004 was to check and verify on a case where the Presiding Judge of the said court was proposed to be inhibited and where he was allegedly groomed to try and not to attend the hearing of the motion for execution. Judge Alauya was actually designated by Judge Rasad Balindong to try, hear and decide the said case. As regards to Civil Case filed by Col. Alimosa Baule on March 1, 2005 against the herein complainant, the motion for inhibition filed in the said court was denied by respondent Judge on the ground that plaintiff Col. Alimosa Baule is related to the herein respondent within the 7th civil degree of consanguinity, hence, is not covered under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court on disqualification of judicial officers, which Order had attained finality. Further, Judge Alauya in the performance of his judicial functions rendered the decision on the said case on July 11, 2005 which decision had been appealed to the Shari'a District Court of Marawi City and was reversed, set aside and dismissed in the decision of the latter dated November 17, 2005.

The complaint against respondent Datu Ashary M. Alauya is based on the alleged failure of the respondent to execute the decision of the Second Shari'a Circuit Court of Marawi City which is according to complainant is a clear defiance of the order of the Court and in violation of Rule 139 of the Rules of Court. Further, that respondent Datu Ashary M. Alauya deliberately failed to inform the Court of the status of the land subject of litigation knowing fully that the land was subject of a final and executory judgment and that as a result of such inactions, a decision based on compromise agreement was rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Lanao Del Norte presided over by Hon. Moslemen Macarambon thereby depriving the children of the complainant their rights over the said land, which act of Alauya constitutes not only gross ignorance of the law, dishonesty and gross misconduct but a mockery of justice.

Respondent Datu Ashary M. Alauya in his comment denied all the accusations against him for being baseless, unfounded and malicious. That on January 6, 2005, he received a letter request from Macalinog S. Abdullah, Clerk of Court II, Second Shari'a Circuit Court, for the services of the Deputy Sheriff for the execution/implementation of the Writ of Execution issued in Civil Case No. 2002-19, together with the copy of the writ of execution and the decision of the Court dated December 6, 2004. On September 13, 2005, he received another letter of the same nature but the same was returned by the latter to the Clerk of Court with the information that the said writ is an issue in a pending case before the Court of Appeals (C.A. G.R. Civil Case No. 00575), and that the herein respondent being one of the parties in the said case cannot preempt whatever decision and/or order that may be promulgated by the appellate court. On December 20, 2005, Macalinog S. Abdullah requested Atty. Cairoding P. Maruhom, Clerk of Court VI and Ex-Officio Sheriff, RTC, Marawi City for the services of the Deputy Sheriff to implement the same writ of execution who deputized Deputy Sheriff Acmad C. Aliponto of RTC, Branch 10, Marawi City. In the report of Sheriff Aliponto dated January 31, 2006, the latter requested that an Alias Writ of Execution be issued. On January 31, 2006, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued by Macalinog S. Abdullah. On March 22, 2006, Deputy Sheriff Aliponto filed a Sheriff's Report and requested that the respondent Col. Baule be cited for indirect contempt for having violated Rule 39, Sec. 11 of the Revised Rules of Court. On June 22, 2006, a 2nd [Alias] Writ of Execution was issued which was forwarded to the herein Respondent on June 28, 2006. On June 29, 2006, he issued an authority to serve the Writ of Execution to Abdulsamad B. Alawi, Sheriff III, Shari'a District Court, Marawi City, copy of which was served to the latter on June 30, 2006. Hence, he cannot be said to have refused and failed to execute the decision of the court in Civil Case No. 2001-19. Further, it was only after the Deputy Sheriff of RTC, Marawi City failed to successfully implement the Alias Writ of Execution that his assistance was sought by the Clerk of Court of the Second Shari'a Circuit Court, Marawi City, Also, as to the submission of the Sheriff's Return, the same applies to the Deputy Sheriff and not to the herein respondent in his capacity as Ex-Officio Sheriff.

EVALUATION: The charges for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Grave Abuse of Discretion against Judge Ameladin M. Alauya are without basis as the same are not supported by any evidence on record. The Order of the Respondent Judge denying the Motion for Inhibition filed by the herein complainant in Civil Case No. 05-02 is in the performance of his judicial functions. Respondent Judge clearly stated in [his] order denying the Motion for Inhibition that he is related to the plaintiff in the above-mentioned case within the 7th degree of consanguinity, thus, is not covered by Section 1, Rules 137 of the Rules of Court on disqualification of judicial officers. Being a judicial function, the complainant should have availed of a judicial remedy which is a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying the motion for inhibition and latter became final there being no appeal taken therefrom.

On the issue of the presence of the Respondent Judge in the hearing of the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution before the sala of Judge Aboali J. Cali, the complainant failed to show proof that Judge Alauya used his position to influence Judge Cali. Respondent Judge satisfactorily explained that his presence on the sala of Judge Cali was merely incidental as he has to check on a case wherein Judge Cali inhibited himself which case was eventually assigned to [him] in view of such inhibition. The complainant failed to show any evidence in support of her complaint thereby making all the allegations therein self-serving and should not be given weight. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant which in this case, complainant Saphralyn P. Minalang failed.

The charges for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Dereliction of Duty against respondent Datu Ashary M. Alauya, are mere allegations and general statements which are not supported by any evidence. The complaint does not state the particular acts which were commited by the respondent that could warrant conviction. Respondent Datu Ashary M. Alauya had satisfactorily explained in his comment that when he received a letter from Macalinog S. Abdullah, Clerk of Court II, Second Shari'a District Court, Marawi City requesting for the implementation of the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 2002-19. On September 13, 2005, he made a return of the said request on the ground that the said writ of execution is the subject of the certiorari case pending before the Court of Appeals and the Respondent was one of the parties then. Respondent in his letter made it clear that he cannot act on the request for execution in view of such pending incident. Again, on June 22, 2006, Respondent Datu Ashary M. Alauya received the request for implementation of a "2nd Alias Writ of Execution" in the same case. Knowing that the certiorari case had been dismissed by the Court of Appeals and by the Supreme Court, respondent, on June 28, 2006, issued an Authority to Serve Writ of Execution to Deputy Sheriff Abdulsamad B. Alawi of the Shari'a District Court, Marawi City. As such, the duty to make a Sheriff's Return rest on Sheriff Alawi and not on his. He cannot therefore be held liable for dereliction of duty for his failure to make a Sheriff's Return as the same is not his duty.

WHEREFORE, FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended that the complaint against Respondent Judge AMELADIN M. ALAUYA and Clerk of Court DATU ASHARY M. ALAUYA be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. [2] cralaw In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that respondents have regularly performed their duties. [3] cralaw

In the case at bar, the evidence submitted by the complainant is insufficient to establish the charges against the respondents. Besides, the respondents were able to refute the charges hurled against them.

The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon all employees of the Judiciary. At the same time, however, neither will we hesitate to shield the same employees from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. [4] cralaw

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaints against respondent Judge AMELADIN M. ALAUYA and Clerk of Court DATU ASHARY M. ALAUYA are DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo , pp. 248-252.

[2] cralaw Lorena v. Encomienda, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1177, February 8, 1999, 302 SCRA 632.

[3] cralaw Onquit v. Binamira-Parcia, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1085, October 8, 1998, 297 SCRA 354.

[4] cralaw Francisco v. Leyva, A.M. No. P-94-1106, March 10, 1999, 304 SCRA 365.


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