Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
SPOUSES RAINER TIU and JENNIFER TIU, Complainants, - versus - VIRGILIO F. VILLAR, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the
Clerk of Court, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No. P-11-2986 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3460-P] Present: PERALTA, J., Acting
Chairperson,* ABAD, PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. Promulgated: June 13, 2012 |
x -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an administrative matter for
Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service filed against respondent Virgilio F. Villar, Sheriff
IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Pasay City (Sheriff
Villar), relating to the implementation of the Writ of Preliminary Attachment
in Civil Case No. R-PSY-10-02698-CV,
a case for Sum of Money and Damages, captioned as Henry Sia and Hankook
Industrial Sales Co. v. Spouses Rainer Tiu and Jennifer Calacday Tiu, et al.[1]
The factual antecedents are as
follows:
On February 17, 2010, Henry Sia (Sia)
and Hankook Industrial Sales Co. filed a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages
with prayer for Preliminary Attachment against Classique Concept International
Corporation (Classique), First Global Ventures, Inc. (First Global)
and herein complainants, spouses Rainer and Jennifer Tiu (Spouses Tiu),
before the Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, Branch 115 (RTC). In its Order[2]
dated
Unperturbed, Spouses Tiu moved to have
the case against them dismissed on the ground of improper venue.[3]
In its Order[4] dated
WHEREFORE, under Rule 4, Sec. 2, in
relation to Rule 16, Sec. 1 (c), because of improper venue, the defendants
Motion to Dismiss and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss are GRANTED, and this case
is DISMISSED.
The writ of preliminary attachment dated
March 8, 2010 previously issued by this Court is set aside, and everything
seized thereby be immediately returned by the sheriff responsible to the
defendants. [Emphasis
ours]
SO ORDERED.[5]
The motion for reconsideration filed
by the group of Sia was denied by the RTC in a subsequent order[6] dated
WHEREFORE, finding no cogent or legal
reason to reverse or modify the Order dated
Sheriff Virgilio Villar is directed to
immediately return to defendants the seized items.[7]
Acting on the RTCs directive,
Sheriff Villar submitted his Sheriffs Report with Urgent Prayer for Issuance
of Clarificatory Order.[8] He wanted to be clarified on whether or not he
should wait for the trial courts order to attain finality before returning the
attached personal properties.
In the meantime, Sia filed his Notice
of Appeal and Very Urgent Motion to Stay Enforcement of Order to Return Seized
Properties while Spouses Tiu filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Cite Sheriff
Virgilio Villar in Contempt of Court.[9]
Not contented with the motion, Spouses
Tiu also lodged the present administrative complaint[10]
against Sheriff Villar for his alleged questionable actions regarding the
implementation of the writ of attachment against them.
First, Spouses Tui alleged that there
was no proper service of summons upon them by Sheriff Villar before the writ of
attachment was implemented. They claimed that Sheriff Villar merely left a copy
of the summons with one of their employees in violation of the rule on personal
service of summons to the parties concerned as required by the Rules of Court. Second,
they averred that Sheriff Villar improperly implemented the writ against them
without prior coordination with the Sheriffs Office of Pasig City. Third,
they insinuated that Sheriff Villar asked for money for the release of their
seized properties. Fourth, they charged that Sheriff Villar
maliciously refused to return their attached properties despite the RTCs clear
directive after the case against them was dismissed.
In
his Comment,[11] Sheriff
Villar denied all the charges against him. He denied the allegation of Spouses
Tiu that there was no valid service of summons for the writ of preliminary
attachment. He explained that he effected
a substituted service after several unsuccessful attempts to personally serve
the summons on them. He also added that
he made the proper coordination with the Sheriffs office of P35,000.00 from their driver in exchange for the release of the
couples seized properties. He asserted that
he had no ill-motive against the return of the seized properties to them and
even sought clarification from the RTC.
Incidentally, the RTC, in its Order[12]
dated August 17, 2010, gave due course to the Notice of Appeal and stated that
by virtue of Sias timely appeal it had no recourse but to elevate the entire
records of the case, including the issue of the return of Spouses Tius
attached properties, to the Court of Appeals.
The
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its Report[13]
dated
RECOMMENDATION: We respectfully submit
for the consideration of the Honorable Court the recommendation that the
instant administrative complaint against Virgilio F. Villar, Sheriff IV, Office
of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court,
In
its Resolution[15] dated
In
his Report and Recommendation[16] dated
Judge
Ramizo found that Sheriff Villar complied with the instruction embodied
in Administrative Circular No. 12 requiring a sheriff to notify in writing the
sheriff of the place where the execution of a writ is to take place. He likewise found nothing irregular in the
substituted service of summons effected by Sheriff Villar as the same complied
with the requisites mandated by the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the investigating judge saw no
bad faith when Sheriff Villar failed to return the attached properties after
the dismissal of the case and the issuance of the RTC order to release the
seized properties. According to him,
Sheriff Villar merely retained the properties because he was uncertain whether or
not he should wait for the finality of the order dismissing the case. Judge Ramizo gave no weight to Spouses Tius
allegation that Sheriff Villar demanded money from them to regain possession of
their seized properties.
After a careful examination of the
records, the Court agrees with the recommendation of Judge Ramizo that the
complaint against Sheriff Villar be dismissed.
On the questioned substituted service
of summons, the Court concurs with the findings of the investigating judge that
there was a valid substituted service of summons. As a rule, personal service of summons is preferred as against substituted
service. Thus, substituted service can
only be resorted to by the process server only if personal service cannot be
made promptly. Most importantly, the
proof of substituted service of summons must (a) indicate the impossibility of
service of summons within a reasonable time; (b) specify the efforts exerted to
locate the defendant; and (c) state that the summons was served upon a person
of sufficient age and discretion who is residing in the address, or who is in
charge of the office or regular place of business, of the defendant. It is
likewise required that the pertinent facts proving these circumstances be
stated in the proof of service or in the officers return.[17]
Based on
the records, Sheriff Villar exhausted efforts to personally serve the summons
to Spouses Tiu as indicated in his Sheriffs Return of Summons[18]
dated
On the charge that Sheriff Villar did not comply with the requirement of
prior coordination as mandated in Administrative Circular No. 12, Judge Ramizo found
it baseless and stated that the sheriff properly complied with the circular. Administrative
Circular No. 12[19] lays
down the guidelines and procedure in the service and execution of court writs
and processes in the reorganized courts.
In particular, paragraph 2 thereof states:
x
x x x
2. All Clerks of Court of the Metropolitan Trial
Court and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, and/or their deputy sheriffs shall
serve all court processes and execute all writs of their respective courts
within
their territorial jurisdiction;
[Emphasis ours]
x x x x
Paragraph 5 of the same circular requires prior
coordination with the sheriff of the place where the execution of the writ will
take place, to wit:
5. No sheriff or deputy sheriff shall
execute a court writ outside his territorial jurisdiction without first
notifying in writing,
and seeking the assistance of, the sheriff of the place where the execution
shall take place; [Emphasis ours]
In
the case at bench, documentary evidence indeed discloses that Sheriff Villar of
As to
Sheriff Villars failure to effect the immediate release of the attached
properties despite the RTCs order of release, the Court finds the explanation
of the respondent sheriff acceptable enough as not to earn a sanction from the
Court.
By
law, sheriffs are obligated to maintain possession of the seized properties absent
any instruction to the contrary. In this case, the writ of preliminary attachment
authorizing the trial court to legally hold the attached items was set aside by
the RTC Order dated
SEC. 19. Disposition of attached property where
judgment is for party against whom attachment was issued.If judgment
be rendered against the attaching party, all the proceeds of sales and money
collected or received by the sheriff, under the order of attachment, and all property
attached remaining in any such officers hands, shall be delivered to the party
against whom attachment was issued, and the order of attachment discharged.
The instruction of the trial court was clear and simple. Sheriff Villar was to return the seized properties
to Spouses Tiu. He should have followed
the courts order immediately. He had no discretion to wait for the finality of
the courts order of dismissal before discharging the order of attachment. Nevertheless,
Sheriff Villar showed no deliberate defiance of, or disobedience to, the
courts order of release. Records show that he took the proper step under the
circumstances. He filed with the trial court his Sheriffs Report with Urgent
Prayer for the Issuance of a Clarificatory Order. The Court perceives nothing
amiss in consulting the judge before taking action on a matter of which he is not
an expert.
As to the allegation of grave misconduct for
supposedly asking P35,000.00 to facilitate the return of the attached
items, the records bear out that it was a baseless charge. In administrative
proceedings, the complainant bears the onus of establishing, by
substantial evidence, the averments of his complaint.[22] Other
than the bare allegations of Spouses Tiu, no evidence showing that Sheriff
Villar surreptitiously demanded money from them for the release of their
attached properties was adduced. Mere suspicion without proof cannot be the
basis of conviction.[23]
WHEREFORE, the complaint against Virgilio F.
Villar, Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court,
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
ROBERTO A. ABAD MARTIN
S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M.
PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
*
Per Special Order No. 1228 dated
** Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate
Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order No. 1229 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-7.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Complaint-Affidavit
dated
[11] Rollo, pp. 47-50.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] San Pedro v. Ong, G.R. No. 177598,
[18] Rollo, p. 14.
[19] Dated
[20] Rollo, p. 425.
[21]
[22] Hon. Barbers v. Judge Laguio, Jr., 404
Phil. 443, 475 (2001).
[23] Spouses Lorena v. Judge Encomienda, 362
Phil. 248, 257 (1999).