ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 04-2072-P.� August 22, 2005]
GORRES vs. TEVES
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 22 2005.
Adm. Matter OCA I.P.I. No. 04-2072-P (Atty. Ceciliano L. Gorres, Jr. vs. Assistant Clerk of Court Josephine R. Teves and Sheriff III Lloyd P. Tagalog.)
For consideration is the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) with respect to the complaint-affidavit filed by Atty. Ceciliano L. Gorres, Jr. against respondents Mrs. Josephine R. Teves, Assistant Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Office of the Clerk of Court, Cebu City and Lloyd P. Tagalog, Sheriff III, MTCC, Branch 3, Cebu City, charging respondents with Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority / Discretion and Non-Compliance with Bar Matter No. 1132.
Complainant was a third-party claimant in Civil Case No. CEB-49364 entitled PJH Lending Corporation vs. Sheila N. Reguero and John Doe, then pending before the MTCC, Branch 3, Cebu City. On September 22, 2004, said court issued an order granting the prayer of PJH Lending Corporation for the issuance of a writ of replevin to seize the motor vehicle of complainant. Pursuant to the court's order, respondent Teves, in her capacity as assistant clerk of court, directed respondent Tagalog to take into his custody the motor vehicle subject of the case. Respondent Tagalog complied as evidenced by the inventory receipt that he issued on September 28, 2004.
On November 24, 2004, complainant initiated the instant administrative complaint against respondents. The charges were apparently based on the allegations in the affidavit-complaint that the seizure of the motor vehicle was illegal because the pleading filed in the action for replevin was an unsigned pleading for failure to comply with Bar Matter No. 1132 dated November 12, 2002 and this Court's Resolution dated September 26, 2000 on the necessity to indicate the counsel's roll number, IBP official receipt number, and date of issue in the pleading. Complainanat also alleged that Atty. Sergio L. Monzolin, the signatory in the initiatory pleading, had already died in 1989.
In her comment, respondent Teves denied the accusations against her, claiming that the signing of the writ of replevin was a ministerial duty done in good faith and in compliance with the order of the judge. She claimed as hearsay the claim of complainant that Sergio L. Monzolin, Jr. was not a member of the Philippine bar, there being no proof to that effect. Respondent Teves branded the allegations against her as baseless and malicious and meant to harass court employees who are merely doing their jobs.
For his part, respondent Tagalog likewise denied the accusations against him, contending that the seizure of the motor vehicle was only in compliance with the directive to serve the writ of replevin issued by the trial court. He asserted that he was not in a position to determine whether or not Sergio L. Monzolin, Jr. was a member of the bar.
The Court adopts the recommendation of the OCA to dismiss the complaint against both respondents.
As correctly held by the OCA, it is beyond the administrative duties of the assistant clerk of court and the sheriff to determine the sufficiency of pleadings filed in the trial court. Complainant's allegation that the complaint was an unsigned pleading entails a judicial inquiry into whether or not the complaint complied with the requirements of the Rules of Court. Verily, this issue may properly be addressed to the trial judge tasked to resolve the dispute.
With respect to the issuance of the writ of replevin, the Court finds respondent Teves to have merely complied with an order of the court. The clerk of court is primarily tasked with making out and issuing all writs and processes issuing from the court. [1] cralaw The assistant clerk of court is authorized to act on behalf of the clerk of court in case of the absence of the latter.
It is also the ministerial duty of the sheriff to execute a writ as directed in obedience to the mandate of the legal authority without regard to the exercise of his own discretion upon the propriety of the act done. There is no showing that respondent Tagalog exceeded the limits of the writ in taking the subject motor vehicle into his custody.
Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and the facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Mrs. Josephine R. Teves, Assistant Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Office of the Clerk of Court, Cebu City, and Lloyd P. Tagalog, Sheriff III, MTCC, Branch 3, Cebu City, is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Collado v. Bravo, A.M. No. P-99-1307, April 10, 2001.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
