ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. P-01-1447.February 19, 2001]

DY vs. PACLIBAR

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 19 2001.

A.M. No. P-01-1447(Mariano Z. Dy vs. Sotero S. Paclibar.)

On November 20, 1998, a sworn letter-complaint was filed by Mariano Z. Dy with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against respondent Sotero S. Paclibar, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch VII of Legaspi City charging the latter with Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer of the Court.

Complainant Mariano Z. Dy was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 8867 entitled: "Mariano Dy vs. Lilia Agu," pending before the RTC, Branch VII of Legaspi City. After trial, a decision was rendered whereby defendant Ms. Agu was ordered to, among others, deliver the sum of P85,000.00 to the plaintiff (herein complainant) as full settlement for a loan incurred by her.

After the decision became final and executory, a writ of execution was issued by the court. Respondent sheriff then implemented the writ and levied defendant's five (5) parcels of land. Complainant was the highest bidder at the auction sale and hence, was awarded the Certificate of Sale covering the five (5) parcels of land.

After the expiration of the period of redemption, respondent sheriff issued a "Definite Deed of Sale" (sic) dated August 5, 1998 in favor of complainant. When complainant went to the Registry of Deeds of Legaspi City for the purpose of transferring title of the subject properties in his name, he was aghast to find out that a Certificate of Redemption dated January 16, 1997 was executed by respondent in favor of defendant Lilia Agu.

Complainant alleges that the execution of the Certificate of Redemption in favor of Ms. Agu, as well as the Receipt of Full Payment of the Redemption Price executed by respondent in favor of Ms. Agu, were falsified since it was made to appear that defendant Agu redeemed the properties subject of the auction sale when in truth and in fact, no redemption was ever made.

Complainant avers that because of the alleged Certificate of Redemption and Receipt of Full Payment, defendant Lilia Agu was able to sell three (3) out of the five (5) parcels of land to third persons to the prejudice of complainant.

Complainant then prays that respondent sheriff be dismissed from service with forfeiture of all his benefits and that he be perpetually disqualified from holding any other public employment.

Respondent sheriff, in his comment to the complaint filed before the OCA, said that on January 1997, defendant Agu offered to redeem the property and gave him the sum of P103,600.00 representing the payment of the bid price with 12% interest per anum and the expenses of the execution. Hence, respondent sheriff issued a Certificate of Redemption in favor of defendant Agu and had the same recorded in the Registry of Deeds. The following day, respondent sheriff wrote complainant a letter informing him of the said redemption. Complainant, reportedly refused to receive the sum of P103,600.00, saying that Ms. Agu should redeem the property for P200,000.00. In view of complainant's obstinate refusal to accept the aforesaid sum, respondent sheriff returned the money to Ms. Agu. Respondent sheriff, however, failed to cancel the Certificate of Redemption issued to Ms. Agu.

Upon learning from complainants representative that Ms. Agu had sold three (3) of the subject properties, respondent sheriff, on August 5, 1998, issued the "Definite Deed of Sale" (sic) in favor of complainant.

Respondent denies complainants charge that he falsified the documents showing Receipt of Full Payment for Redemption Price in favor of Ms. Agu as well as the Certificate of Redemption. Respondent maintains that his Only omission was his failure to cancel the Certificate of Redemption issued to Ms. Agu when he returned the sum of P103,600.00 to the latter.

The OCA found respondent sheriff to have been negligent in the performance of his duties. In his Memorandum dated October 19, 2000, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, stated that respondent's subsequent issuance of a "definite deed of sale" (sic) in favor of complainant did riot erase the fact that respondent failed to cancel the Certificate of Redemption to Ms. Agu.

The Court Administrator then made the recommendation that:

1) the case be RE-DOCKETED as an Administrative Matter; and

2) a FINE in the amount of P2,000.00 be imposed upon respondent Sheriff Sotero S. Paclibar with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

It must be noted that complainant prays for the maximum penalty of dismissal to be meted out to respondent sheriff for falsification of documents. On the other hand, respondent sheriff claims that his only fault was of a "simple omission of duty." The records at hand, however, are insufficient to support the divergent allegations of either the complainant or respondent.

WHEREFORE, this case is hereby referred to the Executive Judge of RTC, Legaspi City for investigation, report and recommendation within sixty (60) days from notice.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE