March 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > March 2007 Resolutions >
[OCA-IPI No. 07-2486-P : March 12, 2007] SPS. ROBERTO AND ANTONIA BIGORNIA V. REUEL P. RUIZ, SHERIFF IV, RTC, BRANCH 89, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN:
[OCA-IPI No. 07-2486-P : March 12, 2007]
SPS. ROBERTO AND ANTONIA BIGORNIA V. REUEL P. RUIZ, SHERIFF IV, RTC, BRANCH 89, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated March 12, 2007.
OCA-IPI No. 07-2486-P - (SPS. ROBERTO and ANTONIA BIGORNIA v. REUEL P. RUIZ, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 89, Malolos City, Bulacan)
In a Complaint-Affidavit dated 5 June 2006, Sps. Roberto and Antonia Bigornia (complainants) charged Sheriff Reuel P. Ruiz (respondent) with Dishonesty, Malfeasance and/or Misfeasance, Abuse of Authority and Grave Misconduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Complainants are respondents in Civil Case No. 799-M-2004 pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 89 of Malolos, Bulacan, entitled "Sarimanok Feeds Company v. Pathways Trading International, Inc." Respondent holds the position of Sheriff IV in the same court.
Pursuant to the RTC order dated 26 January 2005, a Writ of Preliminary Attachment (writ) was issued on 28 February 2005, ordering respondent to attach the properties of complainants to answer for the monetary claims of plaintiff amounting to P14,253,268.94 in Civil Case No. 799-M-2004. Prior to the issuance of said writ, the RTC ordered the plaintiff to post a bond in the amount of P500,000.00: Pursuant to the writ, respondent served the writ and attached two (2) motor vehicles of complainants. Confiscation receipts were correspondingly issued.[1]
Complainants aver that on the day immediately after their vehicles were attached, their counsel filed a Motion to Lift Preliminary Attachment and posted a counterbond. On 16 May 2005, while said motion was pending, respondent released the two (2) vehicles to complainants. He allegedly told complainants that he was about to take a leave of absence to prepare for the 2005 Bar Examinations and thereafter pleaded for financial assistance, which complainants voluntarily gave. According to complainants, they found out later on that respondent had used the vehicles for his own benefit for about two (2) months.[2]
Complainants also question the surreptitious attachment made by respondent on their real property in Dagupan City without securing another order and writ from the trial court in the said place as mandated by Secs. 2 and 12, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. They add that respondent did not comply with Sec. 7 of said Rule when he did not leave a copy of the order of attachment with the owners or whoever was left in charge of the property. When confronted with said fact, respondent reportedly told complainants that he did it upon inducement and insistence of the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 799-M-2004.[3]
In his Answer, respondent denies that he sought financial - assistance from complainants. He also belies the allegation that he used the attached vehicles for his own benefit. He argues that the two (2) vehicles were not sufficient-to cover plaintiffs claim; hence, he proceeded to levy upon the real property of complainants in Dagupan City in accordance with Sec. 9(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.[4] Respondent maintains that he is duty-bound to enforce court orders outside his judicial territory after complying with the requirements laid down in Administrative Circular No. 12, notwithstanding the absence of another order and writ issued by the trial court for another region.[5] Respondent insists that he went to the levied property to serve a copy of the order, description and notice to the occupant or his agent in the premises. However, there was no one in the premises to receive the documents, prompting him to instead serve them on the counsel for complainants taking into account the principle that notice to the lawyer of record is notice to the client.[6] Respondent prays for the dismissal of the case considering that the pertinent provisions in Rule 57 were substantially complied with.
Upon evaluation of the records, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint on the ground that the appropriate remedy is judicial in character.[7]
We agree with OCA's finding that complainants failed to substantiate their allegations concerning the unauthorized use of the attached vehicles and respondent's request for financial assistance. It is well-settled that in administrative proceedings, complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. Aside from their bare allegations, complainants did not present any evidence to support the charge.[8]
With respect to the regularity of the procedure for attachment as provided for in Rule 57, the OCA correctly dismissed the issue as judicial in character. If indeed there were irregularities in the implementation of the writ of attachment, such error cannot be corrected by an administrative proceeding but should be assailed instead through judicial remedies. In the instant case, complainants had already filed a motion to lift the writ of preliminary attachment. Pending the trial court's action on this matter, the filing of this administrative complaint is premature.
Finding the OCA's recommendation to be in accord with law and the facts on record, we AFFIRM the same. The complaint against respondent is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
OCA-IPI No. 07-2486-P - (SPS. ROBERTO and ANTONIA BIGORNIA v. REUEL P. RUIZ, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 89, Malolos City, Bulacan)
In a Complaint-Affidavit dated 5 June 2006, Sps. Roberto and Antonia Bigornia (complainants) charged Sheriff Reuel P. Ruiz (respondent) with Dishonesty, Malfeasance and/or Misfeasance, Abuse of Authority and Grave Misconduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Complainants are respondents in Civil Case No. 799-M-2004 pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 89 of Malolos, Bulacan, entitled "Sarimanok Feeds Company v. Pathways Trading International, Inc." Respondent holds the position of Sheriff IV in the same court.
Pursuant to the RTC order dated 26 January 2005, a Writ of Preliminary Attachment (writ) was issued on 28 February 2005, ordering respondent to attach the properties of complainants to answer for the monetary claims of plaintiff amounting to P14,253,268.94 in Civil Case No. 799-M-2004. Prior to the issuance of said writ, the RTC ordered the plaintiff to post a bond in the amount of P500,000.00: Pursuant to the writ, respondent served the writ and attached two (2) motor vehicles of complainants. Confiscation receipts were correspondingly issued.[1]
Complainants aver that on the day immediately after their vehicles were attached, their counsel filed a Motion to Lift Preliminary Attachment and posted a counterbond. On 16 May 2005, while said motion was pending, respondent released the two (2) vehicles to complainants. He allegedly told complainants that he was about to take a leave of absence to prepare for the 2005 Bar Examinations and thereafter pleaded for financial assistance, which complainants voluntarily gave. According to complainants, they found out later on that respondent had used the vehicles for his own benefit for about two (2) months.[2]
Complainants also question the surreptitious attachment made by respondent on their real property in Dagupan City without securing another order and writ from the trial court in the said place as mandated by Secs. 2 and 12, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. They add that respondent did not comply with Sec. 7 of said Rule when he did not leave a copy of the order of attachment with the owners or whoever was left in charge of the property. When confronted with said fact, respondent reportedly told complainants that he did it upon inducement and insistence of the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 799-M-2004.[3]
In his Answer, respondent denies that he sought financial - assistance from complainants. He also belies the allegation that he used the attached vehicles for his own benefit. He argues that the two (2) vehicles were not sufficient-to cover plaintiffs claim; hence, he proceeded to levy upon the real property of complainants in Dagupan City in accordance with Sec. 9(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.[4] Respondent maintains that he is duty-bound to enforce court orders outside his judicial territory after complying with the requirements laid down in Administrative Circular No. 12, notwithstanding the absence of another order and writ issued by the trial court for another region.[5] Respondent insists that he went to the levied property to serve a copy of the order, description and notice to the occupant or his agent in the premises. However, there was no one in the premises to receive the documents, prompting him to instead serve them on the counsel for complainants taking into account the principle that notice to the lawyer of record is notice to the client.[6] Respondent prays for the dismissal of the case considering that the pertinent provisions in Rule 57 were substantially complied with.
Upon evaluation of the records, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint on the ground that the appropriate remedy is judicial in character.[7]
We agree with OCA's finding that complainants failed to substantiate their allegations concerning the unauthorized use of the attached vehicles and respondent's request for financial assistance. It is well-settled that in administrative proceedings, complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. Aside from their bare allegations, complainants did not present any evidence to support the charge.[8]
With respect to the regularity of the procedure for attachment as provided for in Rule 57, the OCA correctly dismissed the issue as judicial in character. If indeed there were irregularities in the implementation of the writ of attachment, such error cannot be corrected by an administrative proceeding but should be assailed instead through judicial remedies. In the instant case, complainants had already filed a motion to lift the writ of preliminary attachment. Pending the trial court's action on this matter, the filing of this administrative complaint is premature.
Finding the OCA's recommendation to be in accord with law and the facts on record, we AFFIRM the same. The complaint against respondent is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 5.
[2] Id. at 6.
[3] Id. at 7.
[4] Id. at 48.
[5] Id. at 43.
[6] Id. at 49.
[7] Id. at 4.
[8] Sps. Pan vs. Salamat, A.M. No. P-03-1678, 26 June 2006.
