ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1784-P. August 11, 2004]

PILAPIL vs. PE�AFLOR

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 11 2004 .

A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1784-P (Atty. Simeon P. Pilapil vs. Atty. Jacinto B. Pe�aflor, Jr., Clerk of Court VI and Ex-Officio Sheriff and Juan C. Paa�o, Jr., II, Sheriff IV, both of the Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, San Jose, Camarines Sur.)

In a verified Complaint dated September 29, 2003, Atty. Simeon Pilapil charged Atty. Jacinto B. Pe�aflor, Jr., Clerk of Court VI and Ex-Officio Sheriff, and Juan C. Paa�o, Jr., II, Sheriff IV, both of the Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, San Jose, Camarines Sur, with insubordination, usurpation, contempt of court, grave abuse of authority and serious breach and dereliction of duty relative to Civil Case No. 436 entitled Felix Fuentebella, et al. v. Simeon Pilapil for unlawful detainer.

The complainant alleged that the said case was decided against him. The case was then elevated to the Regional Trial Court (Civil Case No. T-797) on appeal, and, thereafter, to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 55547). Both courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff therein. After the denial of the complainant's motion for reconsideration before the CA, he filed a petition for review on certiorari before this Court (G.R. No. 157225). While the case was pending, the CA issued a Resolution dated May 15, 2003, holding "in abeyance all further proceedings in [the] case pending final resolution of the petition in question by the highest court of the land."

The complainant averred that all the parties in the case were furnished copies of the resolution, and that he received his copy on May 26, 2003. However, despite the receipt of such order, the respondents still proceeded to demolish the concrete building owned by the complainant, on the basis of the writ of demolition issued by the MCTC Clerk of Court Florecita V. Patrocinio. The complainant further averred that even prior to the scheduled demolition date, the building was already guarded by armed policemen, probably to instill fear in the minds of onlookers and to deter them from intervening. According to the complainant, the employment of armed men was not included in the writ of demolition issued by the MCTC; as such, the actuations of the respondents constitute grave abuse of authority. In disregarding the resolution of the CA, the respondents are likewise guilty of insubordination, and should be held in contempt of court.

The complainant further alleged that a two-ton crane arrived, and upon instructions of the respondents, the steel gate was forced open, as well as the doors of the building. Once inside, the respondents and their men searched the premises, destroyed cabinets and seized the personal belongings and effects of the complainant. Among such items were the complainant's notarial records, law books, kitchenware, assorted clothing, three (3) electric stand fans, one (1) floor polisher, one (1) narra dresser, one (1) stereo set, one (1) television set, two (2) bread toasters, and two (2) rattan sala chairs. The complainant alleged that the respondents were not authorized to conduct the search, much less seize property. The complainant further narrated that the following day, two trucks of the Department of Public Works and Highways arrived at the demolition site and took steel window frames with glass and several steel round bars worth P500,000 without the complainant's permission. The said items were never turned over to the complainant, and were not properly accounted for. The complainant concluded that the respondents, for failing to safeguard the mentioned items, are guilty of dereliction of duty.

In their Joint Comment dated November 10, 2003, the respondents denied the allegations of the complainant. Respondent Pe�aflor admitted that he was present during the demolition, only to insure that his co-respondent, Deputy Sheriff Paa�o, would properly implement the writ. According to the respondents, no armed men were employed to guard the demolition site prior to the scheduled demolition of the property on May 30, 2003. On the contrary, it was the complainant who threatened the respondent with the following statement: "Sige, probaran baya nindong gabaon and harong ko nganing mapugutan na karno. Sigitradong makukua nindo an saindong hanap" ("You try to demolish my house and you'll get beheaded. You will surely get what you are asking for"). The respondents further claimed that they could not be held guilty of insubordination since they were not furnished with a copy of the CA Resolution. The respondents further opined that the function of the sheriff is only ministerial in nature, and as such, a sheriff cannot, by his own discretion, refrain from enforcing an order of the court.

In his Reply dated December 2, 2003, the complainant alleged that per certifications issued by the Postmaster of the San Jose, Camarines Sur Post Office, the RTC, Branch 58, received a copy of the Order of the CA on May 26, 2003, while the MCTC received its copy on May 29, 2003. The complainant stressed that the respondents hold office at the RTC of San Jose, Camarines Sur, Branch 58, and that their tables are adjacent to that of the receiving clerk, making it impossible for them not to have known of the receipt of such order.

In their Rejoinder dated January 12, 2004, the respondents pointed out that they hold office at the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, San Jose, Camarines Sur, and not at the RTC, Branch 58, as erroneously averred by the complainant. They also stressed that the Supreme Court resolved to deny the complainant's petition for review on certiorari, which denial became final and executory on May 23, 2003.

The instant administrative case is dismissed.

It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint. Such evidence must be competent and derived from direct knowledge. ^[1] cralaw Charges based on mere conjectures and suppositions cannot be given credence. ^[2] cralaw As observed by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in its Report and Recommendation dated April 28, 2004, the affidavits of the complainant's witnesses appear to be hearsay and were properly controverted by those of the respondents' witnesses. The respondents also adequately explained the presence of policemen during the demolition, who were there to ensure that the writ would be properly implemented. In fact, it was the complainant himself who refused to be present at the site during the demolition, and designated his caretaker, Jerry Pilapil, to secure his (the complainant's) belongings. ^[3] cralaw The complainant, likewise, refused to claim his properties from respondent Paa�o.

We quote with approval the following observation of the OCA:

Except for the Court of Appeals' resolution to hold in abeyance all further proceedings in the subject case pending final resolution of the complainant's petition for review on certiorari by the Supreme Court, execution was in order. Nonetheless, respondent could still not be liable for insubordination considering that they were not notified of the subject resolution. Moreover, when the Court of Appeals issued the subject resolution on 15 May 2003, the Supreme Court had already long denied complainant's petition for review on certiorari on 2 April 2003. ^[4] cralaw

It must be stressed that the duty to execute a writ is mandatory and ministerial. ^[5] cralaw Sheriffs have no discretion on whether or not to implement a writ. If not immediately enforced, final judgments of the courts become empty victories for the prevailing parties. ^[6] cralaw In the instant case, the respondents were merely performing their ministerial duty to implement the writ of demolition issued by the RTC.

WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint is dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw See Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Emilia B. Legaspi, RTC, Iloilo City. Branch 22, 405 SCRA 514 (2003).

^[2] cralaw Leonides T. Cortes v. Sandiganbayan Justices Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada and Rodolfo G. Palattao, A.M. No. SB-04-11-J, February 13, 2004.

^[3] cralaw Rollo, p. 74.

^[4] cralaw Ibid.

^[5] cralaw Duenas v. Mandi, 151 SCRA 530 (1987).

^[6] cralaw Mendoza v. Sheriff IV Tuquero, 412 Phil. 435 (2001).

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011