ChanRobles Virtual law Library

SECOND DIVISION

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 19 2005.

A.M. No. P-05-2081 ( Atty. Anthony L. Po vs. Conrado G. Lamano .)

R E S O L U T I O N

Before us is an administrative complaint dated February 12, 2004 filed by Anthony L. Po charging Conrado G. Lamano, Sheriff, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Manila with gross misconduct and violation of Administrative Circular No. 59 in relation to Sections 6 and 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.

Complainant's allegations are as follows:

Sometime on 6 February 2002, an Amended Complaint was filed by the Philippine Bank of Communications in Civil Case No. 96-79221 pending then at the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37. The amended Complaint ADDED four (4) additional defendants in said case namely, Irene C. Uy; Ivy Frances C. Uy, Edward C. Uy and Jaime C. Uy.

The address of the additional defendants as alleged in said Amended Complaint was placed and stated by plaintiff in said pleading at No. 2 Zinia Street, Valle Verde II, Pasig City.

In October 2003, respondent herein went to the office of complainant and misrepresented himself to be a representative of plaintiffs counsel. He managed to enter the premises of complainant's office and attempted then to serve a 'pleading' which he stated to be from the plaintiff. It happened that complainant was there at the time and he informed the respondent that what he was serving was NOT A PLEADING of the plaintiff Bank. True enough, respondent - in a gross act of misrepresenting himself to be a representative of the plaintiff Bank - was attempting to cause the service of the summons to the additional defendants in the case through the office of the COUNSEL.

Respondent Sheriff did not persist in serving the summons to the defendants through undersigned counsel upon being apprised by undersigned that summons should be served to the parties and NOT to counsel.

However, on 21 January 2004, the respondent Sheriff again went to the office of the complainant. At that time, complainant herein was out of the office. Respondent Sheriff managed to 'sweet talk' the secretary of complainant to accepting certain documents which he told her to be court documents.

The 'court documents' served and tendered by respondent to the secretary of complainant herein turned out to be ALIAS SUMMONS to additional defendants Irene C. Uy; Ivy Frances C. Uy; Edward C. Uy and Jaime C. Uy. Respondent Sheriff left with the office of undersigned counsel three (3) copies of the Summons with attached Amended Complaints in Civil Case No. 96-79221 and told complainant's secretary that Atty. Po and Atty. Rolando F. Carlota may serve the summons to the other parties.

Complainant herein arrived in his office after the respondent left. Complainant was surprised to find out that respondent Sheriff ignored all the procedures provided for by law in the service of summons to the party defendants and was further surprised that respondent tasked him and Atty. Carlota to serve the documents to additional defendants.

Undersigned immediately wrote a letter to the respondent and returned to the RTC, Branch 37, Manila the summons and the attached Amended Complaints....

Despite his willful and unlawful acts, the respondent Sheriff was unrepentant and he obviously refused to rectify his acts of having grossly violated Administrative Circular No. 59 of the Supreme Court in relation to Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure. ^[1]

In his Comment, respondent denies that he went to the office of complainant in October 2003, introduced himself as a representative of the plaintiff, and tried to serve summons to the additional defendants. Respondent admits having gone to the office of complainant on January 21, 2004 but claims that his purpose was to furnish complainant copies of the order of the RTC dated March 21, 2002 as well as the writ of preliminary attachment and amended complaint in the subject civil case. He contends that since complainant made an entry of appearance as the defendants' new counsel only after the filing of the amended complaint, he deemed it proper to furnish complainant copies of the court processes which were previously issued in order to apprise him of the said documents. ^[2]

On the strength of the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), we issued a Resolution dated December 14, 2004 referring the instant case to Executive Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas of the RTC of Manila for investigation, report and recommendation. ^[3] In lieu of Judge Lanzanas, Acting Executive Judge Antonio M. Eugenic, Jr. commenced to set hearings for reception of evidence.

On April 8, 2005, complainant filed with the RTC an Affidavit of Desistance contending that the "case arose from a misunderstanding which could not have been foreseen at the time that the complaint was filed." Claiming that "the respondent could not be entirely faulted," complainant prayed for the dismissal of the case. ^[4] In view of complainant's desistance, Judge Eugenio, Jr. issued, on even date, an order terminating the hearing set for the presentation of evidence on the said case. ^[5]

Despite the affidavit of desistance and the subsequent termination of the hearing, Judge Eugenio, Jr. filed on April 25, 2005 his Report and Recommendation with the following evaluation:

After a careful examination of the facts and the evidence on record, the court finds merit in the explanation of the respondent. Complainant's allegation that it was Sheriff Lamano who came to his office in October 2003 to serve the summons was never proven and the sheriffs explanation that it was actually a representative of the plaintiff who came on that date was never rebutted, much less that said respondent sweet-talked complainant's secretary into receiving the summons and the amended complaint. The Court is of the belief that the respondent only did his duty when he went to complainant's office on January 21, 2004 to serve copies of the order dated March 21, 2002 and the Writ of Preliminary Attachment without any intention to misrepresent and deceive or coerce anybody. Having just entered his appearance as new counsel for the defendants, it is but fair that the new counsel be furnished copies of the court's issuances which had remained unserved because of the change of defendant's counsel. ^[6]

Accordingly, Judge Eugenio, Jr. recommended that the administrative case against respondent be dismissed. ^[7]

On June 15, 2005, we referred the instant administrative matter to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation. ^[8]

In his Report dated July 11, 2005, Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. agreed with the findings and recommendation of Judge Eugenio, Jr.

We sustain the findings and recommendation of both the Investigating Judge and the Court Administrator.

At the outset, we reiterate the rule that an affidavit of desistance does not divest this Court of its jurisdiction to investigate and ascertain the truth of the matter alleged in the complaint against respondent. ^[9] The issue in administrative cases is not whether the complainant has a cause of action against the respondent, but whether the employee against whom the complaint is filed has breached the norms and standards of service in the judiciary. ^[10] Clearly, this Court has the power and the duty to root out misconduct among its employees, regardless of the complainant's desistance. ^[11]

In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint. ^[12] Substantial evidence in an administrative case consists of that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. ^[13] In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that respondent sheriff has regularly performed his official duties. ^[14] In the present case, we find no cogent reason to depart from the findings of both the Investigating Judge and the Court Administrator that complainant failed to substantiate his allegation that respondent is guilty of gross violation of the provisions of Administrative Circular No. 59 ^[15] in relation to Sections 6 ^[16] and 7, ^[17] Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. We likewise defer to the observation of the Investigating Judge and the Court Administrator that complainant failed to rebut respondent's explanation that it was actually a representative of the plaintiff who went to complainant's office in October 2003. In sum, we find nothing irregular in respondent's act of furnishing complainant with copies of the order of the trial court dated March 21, 2002, the writ of preliminary attachment and the amended complaint which were respectively issued and filed in the subject civil case. Hence, the presumption that respondent regularly performed his official duties must stand.

We reiterate the settled principle that this Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees of the judiciary, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. ^[18]

WHEREFORE , the instant administrative complaint is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court