Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > December 2007 Resolutions > [OCA IPI. No. 06-2398-P : December 05, 2007] RE: TEOFILO L. LOVITOS, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. POLICARPIO V. MAYPA, JR. V. ATTY. RAY C. ANDRES, SHERIFF IV, MATUSALEM S. CAMPOREDONDO :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 5 December 2007:

OCA IPI. No. 06-2398-P (Re: Teofilo L. Lovitos, represented by Atty. Policarpio V. Maypa, Jr. v. Atty. Ray C. Andres, Sheriff IV, Matusalem S. Camporedondo).�This administrative matter arose from a Letter-complaint dated 20 February 2006 of Teofilo L. Lovitos: represented by Atty. Policarpio V. Mapa, Jr., charging respondents Atty. Ray C. Andres, Clerk of Court VI, and Matusalem S. Camporedondo, Sheriff IV, both of the Regional Trial Court of Digos City, Branch 18, with grave misconduct relative to Civil Case No. 1600 entitled "Sofia Alviola, et al. v. Teofilo Lovitos" for recovery of share in inheritance and/or partition with accounting and attorney's fees.

Below are the allegations of the parties as summarized by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA):

Complainant, defendant in the above-cited case [Sofia Alviola, et al. vs. Teofilo Lovitos], alleges that in a Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Digos City and later on affirmed by the Court of Appeals he was ordered to reconvey unto his half brothers and sisters 3/10 shares of his inheritance consisting of several parcels of land. However, by the time the said Decision became final and executory he and his wife had already migrated to Hawaii, USA thus, he was not able to execute the Deed of Reconveyance.

Complainant further alleges that on 29 May 2002 the court issued on order for the issuance of the requisite Deed of Reconveyance. Thereafter, on 05 June 2002 the plaintiffs' have (sic) 3/10 shares of the properties in question were resurveyed without court approval and/or his participation.

Complainant avers that on 15 and 28 July 2003, he obtained two (2) Orders approving the survey and technical descriptions he submitted before the court. He laments that despite the lapse of two years still no action was taken by the respondents to implement the said Orders. It was only after respondent Clerk of Court Ray C. Andres finally received a demand letter from complainant's lawyer on 22 September 2005 that the former decided to execute the Deed of Reconveyance.

Complainant also mentions that he was shocked when he learned that it was the respondent Sheriff, who received for Atty. Leonardo Suario, the counsel of Blas Alviola and company, the latter's copy of the Deed of Reconveyance. Complainant contends [ ], "how can a sheriff receive the lawyer's copy when he is supposed to serve and furnish it to him?"

Complainant maintains that because of the inordinate delay in the implementation of the aforesaid 15 and 28 July 2003 court orders for a period of more than two (2) years, plaintiffs have been harvesting coconut from the land belonging to him.

2. COMMENT dated 17 April 2006 of respondent Sheriff Matusalem S. Camporedondo.

Respondent avers that he was not aware of the issuance of the Orders dated 15 and 28 July 2003. He claims that he was only informed of the existence thereof when he was made to sign the copies of the Deed of Reconveyance dated 22 September 2005 executed by his co-respondent, Atty. Ray C. Andres.

Respondent explains that he was not among the persons furnished a copy of the Orders dated 15 and 28 July 2003. A Certification to this effect was issued by Atty. Thea G. Guadalupe, Branch Clerk of Court V, RTC, Branch 28, Digos City.

Respondent denies the allegation that he ''received for and in behalf of Atty. Leonardo Suario" the Deed of Reconveyance dated 23 September 2005. He clarifies that when he received Orders, Summons and other Court Orders for service, he would usually note down [:] "Rec'd for Service" place the date and initial the same. Complainant and his counsel may have merely misread his note as "Rec'd. for Suario."

Finally, respondent sheriff asserts that in the absence of sufficient proof to the contrary, he is deemed to have regularly performed his official function.

3. COMMENT dated 17 April 2006 of respondent Atty. Ray C. Andres.

Respondent explains that it was only after Atty. Maypa wrote him about the Orders dated 15 July 2003 and 28 July 2003 that he became aware thereof. He points out that he cannot be held liable for misconduct because he immediately executed the Deed of Reconveyance when the matter was brought to his attention two (2) years after the said orders were issued.

Respondent points out he cannot be faulted for the delay in the issuance of the Deed of Reconveyance as he was not furnished a copy of the Orders dated 15 July and 18 July 2003 by the RTC, Branch 18, Digos City. He explains that "the Clerk of Court cannot have the knowledge or notice of Orders issued by all the three branches of the Regional Trial Court in Digos City if he is not furnished by a particular Court or by the parties."

Finally, respondent maintains that he has been diligently performing his duties as a lawyer, as court employee and as a civil servant and his record will speak for itself.

4. LETTER-REPLY dated 24 April 2006 of complainant's counsel Atty. Policarpio V. Maypa, Jr.

Complainant's counsel avers that it is not true that Sheriff Camporedondo was unaware of the Orders dated 15 July 2003 and 28 July 2003 []. He claims that contrary to his allegation Sheriff Camporedondo was present during the 8 April 2005 hearing on their Motion to Show Cause why Bias Alviola and company should not be cited in contempt.

Respondent argues that notwithstanding the fact of such constructive notice, respondent Sheriff did nothing to implement the 15 and 28 July 2003 Orders. Worse, it took respondents almost two (2) years to execute the Deed of Reconveyance on 22 September 2005.

OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION: A letter dated 8 March 2006 was sent by then Deputy Court Administrator (now Court Administrator) Christopher O. Lock addressed to Atty. Policarpio V. Maypa, Jr., complainant's counsel, in response to the latter's letter dated 27 December 2005 relative to the alleged delay of Sheriff Camporedondo in the implementation of the orders dated 15 and 28 July 2003 in Civil Case No. 1600. Pertinent portion of which is herein quoted, to wit:

We are furnishing you a copy of the comment dated 06 February 2006 of Sheriff Camporedondo, which we find satisfactory.

In said comment Sheriff Camporedondo explained that he was not furnished a copy of the Orders dated 15 and 28 July 2003, and he became aware thereof only when he was made to sign/initial the Deed of Reconveyance dated 22 September 2005, executed by Atty. Ray Andres, Clerk of Court VI. A Certification to this effect was issued by Atty. Thea G. Guadalupe, Clerk of Court V, Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 18, Digos City. As to the allegation that he received the Deed of Reconveyance for and in behalf of Atty. Leonardo Suario, Sheriff Camporedondo clarified that whenever he receives orders, summons or any court processes for service, he would usually note down, "Rec'd for Suario" place the date and initial the same. The note written at the lower left portion of the Deed of Reconveyance, "Rec'd for Service" was merely misread as "Rec'd for Suario." This could be gleaned for a comparison of the note he has written on the Deed of Reconveyance and on the Summons in another case, Spl. Proc. Case No. FC-1730.

Viewed from all the foregoing, we now consider the matter CLOSED."

The Office of the Clerk of Court then made an evaluation, stating:

In administrative proceedings complainants have the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in their complaints. In the absence of contrary evidence what will prevail is the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties. (Aaron vs. Judge Luna-Pison, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1677, 28 February 2002)

Despite the assertions of complainants and counsel relative to the alleged delay in the implementation of the Orders dated 15 and 18 July 2003, they fail to substantiate their claims of manifest bias and partiality on the part of both respondents. Bias and partiality can never be presumed. Bare allegations of partiality will not suffice in the absence of clear and convincing proof that will overcome the presumption that respondents performed their duties according to law. It is obvious that respondents cannot be blamed for the delay in the implementation of the Orders dated 15 and 28 July 2003. Records reveal that respondents were not furnished with copies thereof. This Office agrees with the contention of respondent Clerk of Court Ray C. Andres that the "Clerk of Court cannot have knowledge or notice of Orders issued by all the three branches of the RTC in Digos City if he is not furnished by the Court, or by the parties."

Furthermore, assuming that there was in fact a delay, such has not been proven to be intentional, deliberate or influenced by corrupt motives. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions remains in favor of respondents.

The OCA then recommended the dismissal of the instant case for lack of merit.

After a thorough evaluation of the records of this case, the Court finds the OCA's evaluation and recommendation to be reasonable and well-supported by the records. Thus, the Court adopts its recommendation. This administrative complaint against respondents Atty. Ray C. Andres, Clerk of Court VI and Matusalem S. Camporedondo, Sheriff IV, both of the Regional Trial Court of Digos City, Branch 18, is hereby DISMISSED.