Republic of the
Supreme Court
M a n i la
|
ATTY. ALBERTO II BORBON REYES,
Complainant, - versus - CLERK OF
COURT V RICHARD C. JAMORA, DEPUTY SHERIFF IV LUCITO ALEJO, and CLERK III EULOGIO T. MONDIDO, all of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, Makati City, Respondents. |
A.M. No. P-06-2224 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2367-P] Present: VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
PERALTA, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: April 30, 2010 |
|
|
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
PERALTA, J.:
Before this Court is a Complaint[1]
dated January 16, 2006, filed by Atty. Alberto II Borbon Reyes against respondents
Atty. Richard C. Jamora, Branch Clerk of Court; Lucito Alejo, Deputy Sheriff
IV; Ely Mondido, Officer-in-Charge of cases, all of the
The antecedent facts of the case, as
culled from the records, are as follows:
Complainant Atty. Alberto II Borbon
Reyes is the counsel of Amador Pastrana, one of the defendants in the
afore-mentioned civil case. On
Meanwhile, dissatisfied with the
Decision, Reyes, on
Thus, Reyes filed the instant
administrative complaint against Jamora, Alejo and Mondido. He insisted that at the time he filed the
petition, no writ of execution had been issued yet in the said case. Reyes
pointed out that neither the Writ of Execution nor the Sheriff’s Return on the
service of the writ was attached to the records of the case.
Moreover, Reyes averred that there
was an over-levy because the plaintiff’s claim amounted to a total of P550,000.00
($10,000.00) only, but Alejo allegedly levied P7,000.000.00 worth of
real properties of his client.
Finally, Reyes accused Mondido of
losing the copy of the petition for relief from judgment he filed in court.
Thus, Reyes claimed that Jamora, Alejo and Mondido connived together, as shown
by their alleged concerted actions, to prejudice the rights of his client.
On
On
For his part, Alejo, in his Comment[8]
dated P200,000.00 as incidental actual expense; P300,000.00
as exemplary damages; and P200,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
Alejo added that at the time he
conducted the public auction on August 3 and 4, 2005 against the properties of
the defendants, there was no order or injunction to stay its execution; thus,
he proceeded with the execution according to his mandate.
Alejo likewise maintained that there
was no over-levy over the defendant’s real properties, since in addition to the
US$10,282.15 as actual damages with interest at 12% per annum, there were also
incidental expenses, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees to be levied. In a nutshell, Alejo averred that the
defendant’s obligation amounted to P1,702,663.86 while the levied
property in P662,949.49
and the P254,000.00 only. Moreover, Alejo pointed out
that the subject judgment stated that the liability of the defendants is
solidary.
On the other hand, in his Comment[9]
dated
Jamora likewise explained that the
task of attaching to the records of the case any pleading or pertinent
documents belongs to the person in charge of civil cases. Thus, with regard to
the alleged loss of the original copy of the petition for relief from judgment
filed by the defendants, Jamora maintained that he was totally unaware of such
incident, which he came to know only after he received the instant
administrative complaint. He averred that even the complainant admitted that he
never followed up said petition from him but always dealt directly with then Pairing
Judge of Branch 56, Hon. Reinato G. Quilala.
Subsequently, in its Memorandum[10]
dated July 7, 2006, the OCA recommended that the instant complaint be re-docketed
as a regular administrative complaint and be referred to the Executive Judge of
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for investigation, report and
recommendation, due to the conflicting versions of the parties.
In a Resolution[11] dated
August 9, 2006, the Court, as recommended by the OCA, resolved to re-docket the
instant case as a regular administrative matter and refer the case to the
Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for investigation,
report and recommendation.
In his Report dated
During the investigation, Judge Dumayas
found that indeed Jamora’s participation in the subject case was limited only
to the issuance of the Writ of Execution on
However, Judge Dumayas found Alejo
liable for hastily implementing the Writ of Execution without the payment of
the required legal fees by the prevailing party in violation of the Rules.
Thus, in a Memorandum dated
We agree with the findings of the Investigating Judge pertaining to the
allegations of usurpation of authority and abuse of authority, but with
modification as to those relative to the implementation of the writ.
A review of the records shows that no evidence was presented during the
investigation to prove that the acts of respondents amounted to usurpation of
authority and grave abuse of authority. Reyes failed to substantiate his
accusations. In the absence of proof, complainant’s bare assertions cannot
overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by
court officials and personnel.
In the instant case, it is apparent that the issuance of the Writ of Execution
was within the scope of duties of Jamora as Branch Clerk of Court. It was also proven that the Writ of Execution
was indeed issued on
Likewise, it was established that it was not Mondido who received the
copy of the petition, thus, complainant’s allegation that they connived with
each other to prejudice the latter’s rights is completely baseless.
As to the liability of Alejo in the
alleged hasty implementation of the writ of execution, we find the same to be
unmeritorious. When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it becomes his
ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to
implement it in accordance with its mandate. This duty, in the proper execution
of a valid writ, is not just directory, but mandatory. He has no discretion whether to execute the
writ or not. He is mandated to uphold
the majesty of the law as embodied in the decision.[12] In
the instant case, respondent Sheriff was merely performing his ministerial duty
when he implemented the writ of execution issued by the court. Alejo, however,
should be reminded that it is required of him to pay the required fees before
the implementation of the writ of execution.
It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the
burden of proving the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence,
and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that
respondent has regularly performed his duties. Indeed, in the absence of cogent
proof, bare allegations of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official functions.[13] The
Court cannot give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint filed
against respondents Atty. Richard C. Jamora, Sheriff Lucito V. Alejo and
Eulogio T. Mondido, of the
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
|
WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
JOSE CATRAL Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-3.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Go
v. Hortaleza, A.M. No. P-05-1971,
[13] Borromeo-Garcia v. Judge Pagayatan,
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2127,