ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[OCA IPI No. 01-1065-P.March 31, 2003]
HEIRS OF BASANES vs. CORTES
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 31 2003.
OCA IPI No. 01-1065-P(Heirs of Cornelio Basanes, Elizabeth Yap, Marietta J. Galendez, Rosanna Cabrera, Carmelita Piosca, Larry Galendez, Linda Patricio, Jessie Galendez, Lourdes Pangalangan, Flordeliza Ortiz, Alexander Galendez, and Ereberta Galendez vs. Virgilio Cortes, Sheriff III, MeTC, Branch 29, Manila.)
For implementing the demolition of their shelters allegedly with undue haste and in an oppressive manner, private complainants jointly filed the instant administrative complaint against respondent Virgilio S. Cortes for grave misconduct. [1] cralaw
Private complainants were defendants in Civil Case Nos. 140874-CV and 140868-CV for unlawful detainer filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 29 by APC Realty and Development Corporation. They allege that, on December 27, 2000, their counsel received an order reinstating the writ of demolition which was earlier issued by the court in the said civil cases for which they filed an "Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and to Hold in Abeyance Implementation of Writ." Private complainants and their counsel attended the scheduled hearing of their urgent motion on January 3, 2001 but were informed that the pairing judge was on leave, hence, the hearing was reset on January 12, 2001 at 8:30 a.m.
Meanwhile, on January 10, 2001, respondent Virgilio S. Cortes, Sheriff III, MeTC of Manila, Branch 29, implemented the writ of demolition despite the pendency of private complainants' urgent motion and pleas for postponement. An "Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Recall Writ of Demolition or its Implementation" was filed by the private complainants on the same day but respondent paid no heed as he had apparently made up his mind.
Public respondent's wilfull act of implementing the writ of demolition on January 10, 2001 allegedly resulted in the damage and/or loss of their respective belongings, the amounts of which are indicated in their joint affidavit-complaint. Hence, respondent is guilty of grave misconduct and should be punished accordingly.
In his Comment, [2] cralaw respondent states that he merely implemented the order issued by the MeTC of Manila, Branch 29 on December 20, 2000, reinstating the writ of demolition earlier issued by the same court on September 14, 2000 after its decision in Civil Case Nos. 140868-CV and 140874-CV dated October 8, 1993 became final and executory. He denied private complainants' imputation of arrogance and abusive conduct in the implementation of the writ which, according to him, was duly observed by police officers from the Western Police District and concerned barangay officials of Tondo, Manila. He also denied the damage and/or loss of personal properties allegedly suffered by the private complainants inasmuch as the items listed in their joint affidavit-complaint were all accounted for.
By way of reply [3] cralaw , private complainants basically reiterated the material points raised in their joint affidavit�-complaint.
Records show that the decision in Civil Case Nos. 140868-CV and 140874-CV for unlawful detainer filed by the APC Realty Development Corporation against the private complainants was rendered by the trial court on October 8, 1993. The decision became final after the appeal instituted by the private complainants was denied by the appellate court. Thereupon, a writ of demolition was issued by the MeTC of Manila, Branch 29, on September 14, 2000 but this was subsequently recalled after the issuance of a status quo order by the RTC of Manila, Branch 26, in Civil Case No. 00-98586 filed by the private complainants. On December 20, 2000, the MeTC reinstated the writ of demolition after the dismissal of Civil Case No. 00-98586 on October 6, 2000, upon motion of the APC Realty and Development Corporation on October 17, 2000.
As earlier noted, private complainants, through counsel, filed an urgent motion for reconsideration of the Order dated December 20, 2000 and prayed that the implementation of the writ of demolition be held in abeyance. However, on January 10, 2000 respondent Cortes implemented the writ of demolition prompting private complainants to file, on the same day, an "Urgent Ex-Parte Motion To Recall Writ of Demolition or its Implementation." The latter motion was never acted upon by the court, rendering the same moot and academic by ensuing events.
In view of the foregoing, there appears to be no basis to hold the respondent liable for grave misconduct. The respondent merely discharged his ministerial function in implementing the lawfully issued writ of demolition after the decision in the illegal detainer case against the private complainants became final and executory. We emphasize that when a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of instructions, to promptly execute it according to its mandate. He may not even use his discretion as to whether to execute it or not. [4] cralaw
The other allegations of the private complainants deserve scant consideration by the Court for being patently baseless. Basic is the rule that he who alleges has the burden of proving his allegation with the requisite quantum of evidence. [5] cralaw Private complainants miserably failed to discharge such burden in the instant administrative case. Without proof of the wrongdoings imputed to him, the respondent enjoys the presumption of regularity in the conduct of his official functions. [6] cralaw
WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator, the instant administrative complaint for grave misconduct against respondent Virgilio Cortes is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 1-5.
[2] cralaw Rollo, pp. 27-29.
[3] cralaw Rollo, pp. 48-49.
[4] cralaw Casaje vs. Gatbalite, 331 SCRA 508, 513 [2000]; Araza vs. Garcia, 325 SCRA 1, 8 [2000]; Balantes vs. Ocampo III, 242 SCRA 327, 331 [1995] citing Young vs. Momblan, 205 SCRA 33, 37 [1992].
[5] cralaw People vs. Topaguen, 269 SCRA 601, 614 [1997].
[6] cralaw Section 3(m), Rule 131, Rules of Court; Bordador vs. Luz, 283 SCRA 314, 386 [1997].
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
