Republic
of the
SUPREME
COURT
FIRST DIVISION
|
CORAZON
TENORIO, represented by IMELDA TENORIO-ORTIZ, Complainant, -
versus - ALYN
C. PERLAS, Sheriff III, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No. P-10-2817 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3089-P] Present: VELASCO,
JR., LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, PEREZ,
JJ. Promulgated: January
26, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This administrative complaint
against Sheriff Alyn C. Perlas (Sheriff Perlas), Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig City stems from a complaint filed by Corazon
Tenorio (Tenorio), represented by her attorney-in-fact Imelda Tenorio-Ortiz,
charging Sheriff Perlas with Oppression, Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct under
Republic Act No. (RA) 6713 and with violations of RA 3019 relative to the
implementation of the Writ of Preliminary Attachment in Civil Case No. 15251,
entitled 747 Lumber and Construction
Supply v. Spouses Edgardo Pile and Marissa Pile for Sum of Money.
The facts of the case, as gathered
from the records, are as follows:
According
to the letter-complaint of Tenorio, on December 22, 2008, Sheriff Perlas,
accompanied by other persons, arrived at her store, Ten Rey Gravel and Sand and
Construction Materials, located at
After this,
Tenorio showed Sheriff Perlas the Certificate of Car Registration of their two
(2) units of dump trucks and pleaded to her not to take the trucks away because
they were the registered owners of the trucks. However, despite this, Sheriff
Perlas forcibly took the two (2) units of trucks without even verifying with
the Land Transportation Office (LTO) as to who were the true registered owners
of the trucks.[4]
Aggrieved,
Tenorio filed a Complaint-Affidavit dated January 12, 2009 before the Office of
the Court Administrator, charging Sheriff Perlas with Oppression, Dishonesty
and Grave Misconduct under RA 6713 and with Violation of RA 3019. According to
Tenorio, Sheriff Perlas used her public office as Sheriff to oppress and harass
her. Further, Tenorio said that the humiliating manner by which Sheriff Perlas
rudely and insolently served the Notice of Levy on her caused her serious
mental anxieties, moral shock, and sleepless nights.[5]
Finally,
Tenorio added in her Complaint-Affidavit that Sheriff Perlas received PhP
50,000 from 747 Lumber & Construction Supply, Inc. as evidenced by the
affidavit of Edgardo Pile.[6]
In his affidavit, Edgardo Pile stated that he saw the trucks parked in the
vicinity of 747 Lumber & Construction Supply; and that despite explaining
to the owner of the store who the true owners of the subject vehicles were, he
refused to surrender them, saying that he paid Sheriff Perlas money for them.
On March 24, 2009, Sheriff Perlas
filed her comment stating that Tenorio already earlier instituted a complaint
for Damages against her before the Municipal Trial Court of Calumpit, Bulacan
for the same incident subject of the instant case. She filed an answer in the
said civil case which she is adopting in the instant administrative case.
In her answer, Sheriff Perlas denied
all the allegations and recounted that on December 17, 2008, Judge Marina
Gaerlan-Mejorada issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment against Spouses Pile in
relation to Civil Case No. 15251.[7]
Consequently, on December 22, 2008, she, together with the plaintiff’s representative
in the civil case, George Clemente (Clemente), proceeded to implement the writ.[8] However, upon arriving at Ten Rey General
Merchandise, the defendants spouses Pile were not present.
Clemente insisted that they proceed to
spouses Pile’s other address, which turns out to be the address of Tenorio,
mother of Marissa Pile. When they reached the place, Sheriff Perlas noticed two
(2) trucks with the body markings “TEN REY” and with plate numbers TJE 757 and
TBU 705. She believed in good faith that these trucks belong to Spouses Pile
and tried to obtain the certificates of registration from the drivers. When the
drivers and Tenorio failed to produce certificates of registration, she assumed
the vehicles were owned by spouses Pile.[9]
Further, Sheriff Perlas claimed that
she acted within the scope of her authority and maintained that she was not
arrogant, discourteous or callous.[10]
On March
16, 2009, the MeTC issued an Order resolving in its ratio decidendi that:
x x x A considerable period of time had lapsed and
yet, no such indemnity bond was filed by the plaintiff, hence, based on the
provision of Section 14, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court ‘the sheriff shall not be bound to keep the property under attachment’
emphasizing the point that the properties levied upon in this case may now be
released to third-party claimant Corazon R. Tenorio, whose proofs of title or
right of possession over the properties ‘in litis’ have proven to be
persuasive.[11]
On June 17,
2009, Tenorio submitted a Manifestation to the Office of the Court
Administrator seeking the dismissal of the instant administrative case against
Sheriff Perlas due to the fact that the trucks had already been released and
that Sheriff Perlas already personally apologized to her for whatever damage
and inconvenience that the Writ of Preliminary Attachment may have caused her. In
addition, Tenorio pointed out that both parties had already settled amicably
and jointly moved for the dismissal of the civil case for damages filed against
Sheriff Perlas.
On May 14, 2010, Court Administrator
Jose Midas P. Marquez (Court Administrator) issued his evaluation and
recommendation on the case. In his evaluation, the Court Administrator found
that respondent Sheriff Perlas was grossly inefficient and guilty of misconduct
in implementing the Writ on December 22, 2008. As a result, the Court
Administrator recommended the following:
(1) The complaint against Alyn
C. Perlas, Sheriff III, OCC – MeTC,
(2) Sheriff Perlas be found
GUILTY of Simple Misconduct and be FINED in the amount of Eleven Thousand Pesos
(P11,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the a similar offense in the future will be dealt with more
severely in the future; and
(3) Respondent Perlas be
directed to EXPLAIN within ten (10) days from notice the receipt of P 50,000
from the plaintiff for the service of the Writ of Preliminary Attachment and
Notice of Levy on Attachment.
We find the
evaluation and recommendations of the Court Administrator well-taken.
Well-settled
is the rule that “[t]he duty of a sheriff in enforcing writs of execution is
ministerial and not discretionary.”[12] However,
“errors in the levy of properties do not necessarily give rise to liability if
circumstances exist showing that the erroneous levy was done in good faith.”[13]
In
the instant case, the conduct of Sheriff Perlas in implementing the Writ is
inexcusable. The facts clearly show that the two (2) trucks seized by her did
not belong to the spouses Pile but to herein complainant, Tenorio. What is
more, she could have acted in good faith and checked from the LTO the identity
of the registered owners of the said vehicles before proceeding with their
seizure.
In
Malmis v. Bungabong, the Court
explained the proper conduct that sheriffs must exercise when performing their
functions, viz:
While it is true that sheriffs
must comply with their mandated ministerial duty to serve court writs, execute
all processes and carry into effect all court orders promptly and
expeditiously, it needs to be pointed
out that this ministerial duty is not without limitation. In the
performance of their duties, they are deemed to know what is inherently right
and inherently wrong and are bound to discharge such duties with prudence,
caution and attention which careful men usually exercise in the management of
their affairs. As agents of the law,
sheriffs are called upon to discharge their functions with due care and utmost
diligence because, in serving the court’s processes and implementing its
order, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their
office and the efficient administration of justice.[14]
(Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, Sheriff Perlas’ explanations
deserve scant consideration. She failed to discharge her functions with due
care and utmost diligence. Mere failure on the part of Tenorio and the drivers
to present the certificates of registration of the vehicles at the time of taking
should have prompted her to exhaust all means to discover the true identity of
the owners.
Moreover,
as to the alleged turn-over of the trucks made by Sheriff Perlas in favor of
the attaching party after receiving money from the latter, there is lack of
substantial evidence to prove it. Administrative proceedings are governed by
the substantial evidence rule, i.e., such amount of relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[15] The
standard of substantial evidence is justified when there is reasonable ground
to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of,
even if such evidence is not overwhelming or even preponderant.[16]
In the instant case, aside from the affidavit of Edgardo Pile, no other
evidence was presented by the complainant to support the allegation that
Sheriff Perlas received the money. Such cannot be considered substantial enough
to support a finding of a serious charge.
Accordingly,
Sheriff Perlas is only guilty of misconduct in the discharge of her functions.
Misconduct is a transgression of an established rule of action. More
particularly, misconduct is the unlawful behavior of a public officer. It means
the “intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or
standard of behavior, especially by a government official.”[17]
In order for misconduct to constitute an administrative offense, it should be
related to or connected with the performance of the official functions and
duties of a public officer.[18]
Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court,
as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, simple misconduct is considered a less
serious offense, sanctioned with suspension without pay for not less than one (1)
month but not more than three (3) months, or a fine of not less than ten thousand
tesos (PhP 10,000) but not exceeding twenty thousand pesos (PhP 20,000).
WHEREFORE,
respondent Sheriff Alyn C. Perlas is found GUILTY
of simple misconduct. She is meted the penalty of a FINE of eleven thousand pesos
(PhP 11,000). She is STERNLY WARNED
that a repetition of similar or analogous infractions in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.
SO
ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARIANO C.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
[1] Complaint-Affidavit, Corazon
Tenorio, p. 2.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Answer, Sheriff Alyn. C. Perlas, p.
1.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Order dated March 16, 2009, Civil
Case No. 15251, p. 3.
[12] Bautista v. Orque, Jr., A.M. No. P-05-2099, October
31, 2006, 506 SCRA 309, 314.
[13] Camarote v. Glorioso, A.M. No. P-02-1611, July 31, 2002, 385 SCRA 533, 537.
[14] Malmis v. Bungabong, A.M. No. P-03-1721,
September 30, 2004, 439 SCRA 538, 541-542.
[15] Menor v. Guillermo, A.M. No. P-08-2587,
December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 395, 400.
[16] Liguid v. Camano, Jr., A.M. No.
RTJ-99-1509, August 8, 2002, 387 SCRA 1, 11.
[17] Senarlo v. Paderanga, A.M. No.
RTJ-06-2025, April 5, 2010, 617 SCRA 247, 256.
[18] Civil Service Commission v. Belagan, G.R.
No. 132164, October 19, 2004, 440 SCRA 578, 599.