ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. No. P-06-2145. October 18, 2006]

TOMASITO GOMEZ v. SHERIFFS ENRIQUE M. TALAG, JR. AND JAIME P. BANAAG

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT. 18, 2006 .

A.M. No. P-06-2145 [formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2178-P] (Tomasito Gomez v. Sheriffs Enrique M. Talag, Jr. and Jaime P. Banaag)

This administrative matter has its roots in the sworn Letter-Complaint [1] cralaw filed by Tomasito Gomez charging Atty. Crislyn Pangindian-Batar, Sheriff Enrique M. Talag, Jr. and Sheriff Jaime P. Banaag, all of the Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Cagayan de Oro City with malfeasance and misfeasance relative to the implementation of the Writ of Execution dated December 20, 2004 issued in Civil Case No. 3-2000 (Eduardo B. Chaves, etc. v. Visitacion M. Flores, et al.) for unlawful detainer and damages. The allegations in the complaint, as well as the respective comments of respondents, are summarized in the Report [2] cralaw of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated November 2, 2005.

Complainant avers that on 07 January 2005, respondents-sheriffs Talag, Jr. and Banaag, together with three (3) armed PNP officers of Balingasag, Misamis Oriental and 25 male laborers of Reynaldo Valmores, forcibly entered his fenced banana plantation at Mambayaan, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, by disconnecting the barb wires. Despite his wife and his son's explanation that they were not a party to the case, subject of the writ, respondent-sheriffs allegedly instructed the hired laborers to cut down the madre de cacao fence plants, dug holes, erect the concrete fence posts and installed barb wires. When complainant pleaded that they desist from intruding on his land, respondent-sheriffs arrogantly dared him to file a complaint against them in any court as they are not afraid for they were specifically ordered by their superior officer and Ex-Officio RTC Sheriff of the province, respondent Atty. Crislyn Batar, to intrude on his land.

In a letter dated 19 January 2005 to respondent Batar, complainant pointed out the errors in the enforcement of the writ and begged that it be corrected[;] however, his letter was allegedly ignored. Complainant thus, prays that respondents be suspended from office pending investigation and be held liable for malfeasance and misfeasance in the implementation of the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 3-2000.

2) COMMENT dated 09 June 2005 of respondent Atty. Crislyn P. Batar strongly stating that the instant administrative complaint was maliciously filed by complainant for the apparent reason that he cannot persuade her and her co-respondents to act according to his wishes.

Atty. Batar explains that sometime in January 2005, after her assumption on 03 January 2005 as Clerk of Court of RTC, Cagayan de Oro City, an angry and agitated complainant came to her office protesting the inclusion of his land in the implementation of the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 3-2000. He wanted the execution stopped for the reason that he is not even a party to the case and that there is another case pending in court involving the portion of the property subject of the writ, which he claims to be the owner. He is also complaining that respondent-sheriffs were arrogant during the execution of the writ.

Sensing that complainant was in a fighting mood as he was angrily looking for respondent-sheriffs, she requested him (complainant) to talk calmly and explained to him that respondent-sheriffs acted in accordance with a lawful court order and a valid writ of execution issued pursuant to the Resolution dated 25 October 2004 of the Court of Appeals. Complainant though was not receptive of her explanation as he insisted that he wanted the execution stopped and kept on reiterating his position. She then asked him to submit a written complaint with supporting documents, if any. Complainant did so on 19 January 2005 to which respondent Batar asked him to come back since the concerned sheriffs shall be required to comment thereon. Complainant agreed but he never made a follow-up of his complaint. Instead, he opted to file the instant malicious administrative complaint.

Lastly, respondent Batar maintains that complainant was well received in her office and his complaint was duly acted upon although not according to what he wanted it to be. Instead of utilizing the available legal remedies in order to stop the implementation of the writ of execution, complainant diverted his anger, frustration and dissatisfaction to the court personnel who merely acted upon a lawful order of the court.

3) COMMENT (with enclosures) dated 09 June 2005 of respondent-sheriffs Jaime P. Banaag and Enrique M. Talag, Jr. praying that the instant case be dismissed for lack of merit and basis for being purely malicious and done to harass them.

They surmise that there is a great possibility that the acts blamed on them by complainant were committed during their absence by persons privy to the plaintiff. Contrary to the allegations of complainant, who is a squatter thereat, it was he who arrogantly challenged them to a fistfight and uttered, "Kamong mga sheriffs mga tigulang na mo apan wala moy mga buot. Panguli mo ug pamasa sa libro." (You sheriffs are old men, [h]ave no sense, you go home and read your books). The letter-complaint was not ignored as complainant alleged. In fact, they were instructed to submit their explanation which they immediately complied with.

Attached to respondent-sheriffs' comment was their comment/explanation dated 26 January 2005 submitted in compliance with Atty. Batar's directive for them to comment on complainant's letter-complaint filed on 19 January 2005. They aver that during the implementation of the writ of execution a surveyor pinpointed the monument boundaries of subject premises. The families residing within the area were ejected and their work was completed by 12:00 noon. Complainant was not among those ejected since his family was actually residing outside the premises, subject of the writ of execution. Apparently, complainant, who is claiming ownership over a portion of the property, was protesting the fencing activities done by the plaintiff during the enforcement of the writ. As they were leaving the premises after the implementation of the writ, their attention was called by complainant's spouse who uttered, "Kamong [mga] sheriff mga tigulang na mo apan wala moy mga buot. Panguli mo ug pamasa sa libro (You sheriffs are already old but you have no sense. Go home and read books)." Then, while they were having their lunch in a nearby place, complainant angrily shouted at them, professing that he owns the land and that the case pertaining to the portion of the premises that he is claiming is still pending in court. When they asked him to produce the document/s to support his claims, he instead challenged them to a fistfight and uttered contumacious words, saying "Lamlam lang ng court's decision. (Shit that court decision)." These statements were uttered in the presence of the police officers, barangay officials and plaintiff's representative.

4) REPLY TO COMMENT dated 30 June 2005 of complainant stating that he was not asking for the stoppage of the implementation of the writ of execution simply because he is not even a party to the case. What he is complaining about is the intrusion of respondent-sheriffs, the hired laborers of Mr. Valmores and the armed policemen in his fenced banana plantation and the destruction of the fences. He further states that there was actually an attempt of respondent-sheriffs to include and fence the land of complainant in the guise of implementing the writ of execution.

Complainant also alleges that respondent-sheriffs were paid by Atty. Romulo Valmores, owner of Misamis Oriental Institute of Science and Technology and buyer of the lot of plaintiff while respondent Batar's husband, Engr. Reynaldo Batar, is the contractor of the buildings of Atty. Romulo Valmores in Balingasag, Misamis Oriental. He contends that the culpability is paramount not only because she is the supervising officer of respondent-sheriffs but also because she specifically directed them to intrude and serve copies of the writ of execution to complainant's family. [3] cralaw

In a Resolution dated March 22, 2006, the Court resolved to dismiss for lack of merit the complaint against Atty. Pangindian-Batar and re-docket the case as a regular administrative matter as against respondent sheriffs. The matter was then referred to Executive Judge Edgardo T. Lloren, Regional Trial Court, Cagayan de Oro City, for investigation, report and recommendation.

The Executive Judge set the case for initial hearing at 2:00 p.m. on June 23, 2006. Despite the fact that the complainant was duly notified [4] cralaw thereof on June 20, 2006, complainant failed to appear. The Executive Judge then issued an Order [5] cralaw resetting the hearing to June 29, 2006, "with stern warning to the complainant that the [c]ourt might recommend dismissal for lack of interest." The notice of hearing was received by one Jam R. Taguic, who stated that he was authorized to receive papers pertaining to the Gomezes, but refused to sign receipt thereof. [6] cralaw Still, complainant failed to appear, prompting respondent sheriffs to file a Motion to Dismiss [7] cralaw for "utter lack of interest on the part of complainant to pursue the said action." The Executive Judge then issued an Order [8] cralaw dated July 5, 2006 directing complainant to file his comment or opposition to the motion to dismiss within ten days, otherwise, the dismissal of the complaint would be recommended. Upon complainant's failure to file his comment or opposition, the Executive Judge submitted his Report and Recommendation dated July 27, 2006, recommending that the case be dismissed "for lack of interest plus failure to decipher the facts due to complainant's refusal to come forward and testify."

The Court agrees with Judge Lloren's recommendation.

It must be stressed that the duty to execute a writ is mandatory and ministerial. [9] cralaw As ministerial officers, sheriffs perform the duties of the office in the context of a given set of facts in a prescribed manner, and without regard to the exercise of their own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. [10] cralaw The order of the court must be executed strictly to the letter, leaving them with no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. [11] cralaw This is so because final judgments of the courts become empty victories for the prevailing parties if not immediately enforced. [12] cralaw

Moreover, it is a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint. Bare allegations, surmises, suspicions and rhetorics will not suffice, as competent evidence must be presented to prove the charges. [13] cralaw As against an unsubstantiated charge of misconduct with no cogent proof thereon, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, the latter shall prevail.

The Court thus resolves to DISMISS the charges against Sheriffs Enrique M. Talag, Jr. and Jaime P. Banaag for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 1-6.

[2] cralaw Id. at 55-58.

[3] cralaw Id. at 55-57.

[4] cralaw Id. at 71.

[5] cralaw Id. at 75.

[6] cralaw Id. at 78.

[7] cralaw Id. at 83-86.

[8] cralaw Id. at 87.

[9] cralaw Duenas v. Mandi, G.R. No. L-65889, June 30, 1987, 151 SCRA 530, 543.

[10] cralaw Sismaet v. Sabas, A.M. No. P-03-1680, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 241, 247-248.

[11] cralaw Sayson v. Luna, A.M. No. P-04-1829, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 502, 505.

[12] cralaw Mendoza v. Sheriff IV Tuquero, 412 Phil. 435, 442 (2001), citing Moya v. Bassig, 138 SCRA 49, 52-53 (1985).

[13] cralaw Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Legaspi, 453 Phil. 459, 464 (2003).


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com