Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > January 2007 Resolutions > [A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2236-RTJ : January 15, 2007] RE: MA. ISABEL S. MENDEZ VS. JUDGE WILLIAM SIMON P. PERALTA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, [RTC] BRANCH 50, MANILA; SHERIFF IV AUGUSTO J. FELICIDARIO, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT; SHERIFF IV OSCAR L. ROJAS, RTC, BRANCH 30, MANILA; AND SHERIFF III ROBERTO E. GARING, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT IN CITIES [METC], OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT :

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 15 JANUARY 2007

RESOLUTION
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2236-RTJ (Re: Ma. Isabel S. Mendez v. Judge William Simon P. Peralta, Regional Trial Court, [RTC] Branch 50, Manila; Sheriff IV Augusto J. Felicidario, Office of the Clerk of Court; Sheriff IV Oscar L. Rojas, RTC, Branch 30, Manila; and Sheriff III Roberto E. Garing, Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities [MeTC], Office of the Clerk of Court).- Complainant Ma. Isabel S. Mendez charges Judge William Simon P. Peralta, RTC, Branch 50, Manila; Sheriff IV, Augusto J. Felicidario, Office of the Clerk of Court; Sheriff IV Oscar L. Rojas, RTC, Branch 30, Manila; and Sheriff III Roberto E. Garing, MeTC, Office of the Clerk of Court relative to Civil Case No. 172530 entitled "Sps. Bayani and Isabel Mendez v. Sps. Delfin and Carmen Fernandez" for ejectment. The allegations in the undated complaint, as well as the respective comments of the respondents, are summarized in the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated October 16, 2006 as follows:

Complainant represents that she is the owner of a house and lot in 1881 Antipolo St., corner Vision, Sta. Cruz, Manila. She claims that the property was donated to her by her parents, Sps. Pablo and Sofia Salandanan and the title to it was transferred in her name upon the death of her father. Spouses Delfin Fernandez, complainant's nephew, and Carmen Fernandez occupy the premises.

Complainant requested the Fernandez spouses to vacate the premises, but they refused, thus a complaint for Ejectment was filed against them. The case was raffled off to the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Branch 15, presided over by Judge Sarah Alma Lim. After trial, the MTC decided the case in her favor on 9 August 2002. From the MTC's decision, the defendants filed an appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which was raffled off to Branch 30 presided over by Judge Lucia Purugganan, wherein complainant's mother, Sofia Aniosa Salandanan, filed a complaint-in-intervention. Pending appeal, the RTC issued a writ of execution ordering the defendants to vacate and directing that complainant be placed in possession of the subject premises. Eventually, the RTC affirmed the [MeTC's] decision. Aggrieved, the defendants elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, docketed as G.R. No. SP 76336. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision and ordered the Sps. Fernandez and Sofia Salandanan to vacate the premises. From the Court of Appeals' decision, Sps. Fernandez and Salandanan filed separate petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 159880 and 160280, respectively. On 8 December 2003, the Court denied the petition to Sps. Fernandez in G.R. No. 159880, while Salandanan's petition is still pending resolution.

Meanwhile, complainant's mother, Sofia Salandanan, upon the instigation of the Fernandez spouses, filed an action for annulment of TCT No. 246767 docketed as Civil Case No. 01-101487 and raffled off to RTC Branch 50 presided by respondent judge. Although the case before him is one for annulment of title, respondent judge in an order dated 6 May 2004 directed the issuance of a writ of injunction enjoining the [MeTC] from enforcing the writ of execution in the ejectment case. Thereafter, respondent judge partially lifted the writ to Sps. Fernandez but not as to Salandanan. Complainant points out that this is contrary to the Court of Appeals' Decision ordering the eviction not only of the Fernandez spouses but also of Sofia Salandanan.

On the other hand, complainant accuses the respondent sheriffs of inefficiency in the performance of their duties and grave misconduct. She avers that up to now, possession of the subject property has not been delivered to her. She also accuses Sheriff Oscar Rojas of soliciting from her P1,000, but she was able to give only P500. She also spent for the food of the haulers and paid each of them P200. But Sheriff Rojas was unable to execute the writ of execution because he was afraid that Sofia Salandanan would suffer a heart attack if he would evict her from the premises. He wanted the complainant to provide an ambulance for the old woman x x x which would cost P30,000.

Complainant also claims that Sheriff Augusto Felicidario asked from her P5,000 but she was able to give him only P3,000. Complainant belies respondent sheriff Felicidario's claim that he was prevented from implementing the writ of execution because the son of Sps. Fernandez chased him with a jungle bolo.

She adds that respondent Sheriff Roberto Garing was also unable to enforce the writ.

In his COMMENT dated 17 May 2005, respondent judge relates that Civil Case No. 01-101487 was filed by Sofia Aniosa-Salandanan, represented by Delfin Fernandez, against the spouses Bayani and Isabel Mendez for the Revocation/Annulment of TCT No. 246767. He claims that all his orders in the case were the result of his findings after careful and judicious consideration of the pleadings filed by the parties. Respondent attached all the orders he issued to prove that he did not abuse his discretion when he granted the prayer for the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in favor of Sofia Salandanan. He points out that if the parties disagree with his orders and believe that they were issued with grave abuse of discretion, the parties may raise the same by availing of legal remedies. But in this case, counsel for the complainant never questioned any of the orders he issued.

Respondent judge, in his COMMENT ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT dated July 12, 2005, reiterated that he issued the TRO after conducting a hearing and finding that there is extreme urgency for its issuance otherwise, the applicant would have suffered grave injustice and irreparable injury.

Moreover, respondent asserts that he also issued the questioned Writ of Preliminary Injunction on the ground of equity. The property subject of the case pending before him is the same property subject of the [MeTC] decision. His order dated 6 May 2004, sufficiently discussed the basis for the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. He also claim[s] that it is proper to suspend the implementation of the Writ of Execution issued by the [MeTC] in the ejectment case to await the resolution of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 160280, the petition for review on certiorari filed by Sofia Salandanan assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals which included Sofia Salandanan in the execution of the [MeTC] decision. According to respondent, complainant tries to mislead the Court, that the said petition was already decided. He stressed that it was G.R. No. 159880, the petition for review on certiorari filed by Sps. Fernandez against Sps. Mendez, that was decided by the Court, not G.R. No. 160280 which is still pending resolution.

Respondent sheriff Oscar Rojas in his COMMENT dated 17 May 2005, recalls that the RTC issued a Writ of Execution pending appeal in Civil Case No. 02-104406 entitled "Sps. Bayani Mendez, et al v. Sps. Delfin Fernandez, et al. " In his Sheriffs Report dated 20 February 2003, respondent sheriff informed the court that he went to the premises and implemented the writ. However, he was surprised to see that the premises was padlocked and an old woman named Sofia Salandanan, later to be confirmed by complainant as her mother, told him that Sps. Fernandez had already vacated the premises and that she was the real owner of the premises.

On 15 April 2003, the Court of Appeals issued a TRO thus, respondent sheriff held the implementation of the writ in abeyance. After the lapse of the TRO, respondent sheriff again implemented the writ on 30 September 2003. As evidenced by respondent's Second Partial Report dated 6 October 2003, respondent was not able to implement the writ because the occupants of the premises showed resistance and even threatened to kill him and his haulers with a bolo. He was willing to implement the writ, however, due to the resistance of the occupants of the premises and the failure of the police officers and barangay officials to assist him, he was unable to do so.

On 15 October 2003, counsel for complainant filed a manifestation praying for the appointment of a special sheriff to implement the writ. The court, on 16 October 2003, granted the same and appointed Sheriff Augusto Felicidad as Special Sheriff.

Respondent Rojas denies the allegation of the complainant that he demanded P30,000.00. He maintains that complainant failed to show proof to support the said allegation and insists that if complainant's allegation is true, she could have reported the matter to the court at the first opportune time and not merely asked the appointment of a special sheriff.

In his COMMENT TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT dated 12 July 2005, respondent Rojas avers that he never demanded money nor received the amount of P500.00 from the complainant. The haulers, although under his supervision, were personally hired by the complainant.

In his COMMENT dated 30 May 2005, respondent sheriff Augusto Felicidario narrates that a writ of execution was issued by Judge Lucia Purugganan of RTC, Branch 30, Manila, addressed to respondent Sheriff Oscar Rojas. When respondent sheriff Rojas failed to implement the writ, he was appointed as Special Sheriff upon motion of the complainant.

Respondent Felicidario denies that he demanded P5,000.00 from the complainant. They agreed that complainant will shoulder the expenses for the food and cost of labor for the haulers and policemen who will assist him in the implementation of the writ. On 17 October 2003, he proceeded to the subject premises and served the writ and notice to vacate to the defendants. On 24 October 2003, he went back to the premises but he was confronted by the occupants on the authenticity of the writ which was addressed to Sheriff Rojas. He explained to them that he was appointed as the special sheriff but he was overpowered by them, thus he went to the nearest police station to ask for assistance. However, when they returned, the premises were already padlocked. He immediately informed the complainant that a break-open order is necessary to enforce the writ. There was already an order but it was addressed to respondent sheriff Rojas. Complainant did not avail of a break-open order that was addressed to him until the case was remanded back to the [MeTC] and the writ was executed anew by respondent sheriff Roberto Garing on 30 March 2004.

On the other hand, in his COMMENT dated 20 May 2005, respondent Roberto Garing avers that he did not demand nor receive any amount from the complainant because counsel for the complainant assured him that complainant will shoulder all the necessary and incidental expenses to be incurred in the implementation of the writ.

In the same Report, the OCA recommended that the instant administrative matter be dismissed for lack of merit, as follows:

EVALUATION: Respondent judge is charged with grave abuse of discretion for issuing a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the [MeTC] to implement its decision in the ejectment case.

At the outset, it must be stressed that there is grave abuse of discretion when the acts of a judge amount to "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." Imutan v. Court of Appeals (102 SCRA 826).

As a general rule, a pending civil action involving ownership of the same property does not justify the suspension of ejectment proceedings. However, on strong reasons of equity or when the right of the private respondent to the property in question is seriously placed in issue the proceedings in the ejectment suit may be suspended in whatever stage it may be found. The Court, in Vda. De Legaspi v. Avenda�o, 79 SCRA 135, held that where the action is one of unlawful detainer, as distinguished from one of forcible entry, and the right of the plaintiff is placed in issue in a proper judicial proceeding, it is more equitable and just, and less productive of confusion and disturbance, with all its concomitant inconvenience and expense, for the court in which the issue of legal possession is brought, whether involving ownership or not, to restrain, should a petition for preliminary injunction be filed with it, the effects of any order or decision in the unlawful detainer case in order to await the final judgment in the more substantive case involving possession or ownership.

In the case at bar, the title of the plaintiff (herein complainant) to the property subject of the ejectment case is placed in issue in the revocation/annulment of title case pending before the respondent judge's court. Moreover, there was a pending petition for review of the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the [MeTC] decision at the time the respondent judge issued the writ of preliminary injunction. It is by these circumstances and on grounds of equity that respondent judge granted the issuance of the assailed writ of preliminary injunction.

The issue of whether or not respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the prayer for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction is judicial in nature. If complainant believes that respondent erred and has gravely abused his discretion in issuing the writ, her remedy is not the filing of the present administrative complaint but the filing of the appropriate motion or petition before the proper court.

It is settled doctrine that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular or erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where judicial remedy is available and if a party is prejudiced by the orders of a judge, his remedy lies with the proper court for the proper judicial action and not with the Office of the Court Administrator by means of an administrative complaint. An inquiry into the administrative liability of a judge may be resorted to only after the available remedies have been exhausted and decided with finality.

As regards the charges against respondent sheriffs in connection with the implementation of the writ of execution issued by the [MeTC] in the ejectment case, the parties' allegations and contentions appears to be inconsistent. Complainant, however, failed to adduce evidence to substantiate her allegations.

Grave misconduct is a serious charge which if proven true may warrant the imposition of stringent penalty against the respondents sheriffs, thus complainant should have at least presented proof to substantiate her allegations. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, her allegations may only be taken as nothing more than just plain assertions which do not tend to prove anything. Besides in the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the respondents sheriffs have regularly performed their duties.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is the recommendation that the present administrative complaint against the respondent judge and respondents sheriffs be DISMISSED.

We fully agree with the OCA's findings and recommendation.

As a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous.^[1] The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial.^[2] To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.^[3] Moreover, the filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available. In the absence of fraud, malice or dishonesty in rendering the assailed decision or order, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction.^[4] Finally, in administrative proceedings, the burden of substantiating the charges falls on the complainant.^[5] As the OCA correctly pointed out, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent regularly performed his or her duties will prevail.

Considering the settled doctrines discussed above, the Court resolves to DISMISS the charges against Judge William Simon P. Peralta, Sheriffs Augusto J. Felicidario, Oscar L. Rojas, and Roberto E. Garing, for lack of merit.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Castanos v. Escano, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-93-955, December 12, 1995, 251 SCRA 174, 194.

^[2] Abdula v. Guiani, 382 Phil. 757, 769 (2000).

^[3] Sacmar v. Reyes-Carpio, 448 Phil. 37, 42 (2003).

^[4] Pitney v. Abrogar, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1748, November 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 377, 382.

^[5] Cortes v. Agcaoili, 355 Phil. 848, 880 (1998), citing Lachica v. Flordeliza, 254 SCRA 278, 284 (1996).