Soreño v. Maxino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Eliseo Soreño, Sr. filed a complaint against Atty. RhodERICK Maxino, clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, and Noel Tambolero, deputy sheriff, for "robbery with hold-up" and violation of R.A. No. 3019. The complaint alleged that on February 28, 1996, respondents, with others, went to complainant's shop, intimidated him and his children by drawing a gun, and took four tricycles. Complainant claimed he was told, "Musugot ka ug dili, kuha-on nako imong mag pedicabs." When asked for a court order, respondent Maxino allegedly replied, "Ako ang Korte." A subsequent letter from one "Mucho" Uypitching claimed ownership of the tricycles. Procedural History: Respondents admitted seizing the tricycles but asserted it was to enforce an order dated February 26, 1996, by Judge Felipe T. Torres, granting an extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage filed by Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc., concerning a chattel mortgage agreement over the tricycles. Respondent Maxino denied drawing a gun, stating he identified himself and explained the purpose of their visit. He claimed complainant refused to surrender the tricycles and threatened bloodshed, prompting the request for police assistance. Complainant allegedly tore up the foreclosure documents presented and only yielded after his son intervened. Respondents claimed they tendered receipts, which complainant refused, and that notices of embargo and auction sale were sent. The tricycles were sold at auction on March 11, 1996, to Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for The Visayas had previously dismissed similar charges. An investigating judge recommended dismissal, which was concurred in by the Office of the Court Administrator. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the recommendation for dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents Atty. RhodERICK Maxino and Noel Tambolero committed "robbery with hold-up" and violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Whether the seizure of the complainant's four tricycles was done with grave abuse of authority or in violation of law.
Ruling
The complaint against respondents Atty. RhodERICK Maxino and Noel Tambolero is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondents Atty. RhodERICK Maxino and Noel Tambolero committed "robbery with hold-up" and violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: The Court found no merit in the complaint. The seizure of the tricycles was directly linked to an existing chattel mortgage and an order for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage issued by Judge Felipe T. Torres. The respondents, as sheriff and deputy sheriff, were acting in their official capacity to enforce this court order. The complainant's allegations of "robbery with hold-up" and "I am the court" were found to be unsubstantiated and contradicted by evidence and testimony. The investigating judge noted the difficulty in believing the complainant's version, especially since it was denied by respondents and their witnesses. Furthermore, the complainant's own testimony revealed he knew the seizure was related to his obligation with Uypitching, contradicting his claim of being unaware of the reason. The claim of fear overwhelming him was also unsubstantiated. On Whether the seizure of the complainant's four tricycles was done with grave abuse of authority or in violation of law: The Court affirmed the findings that the seizure was lawful. The respondents presented evidence, including the order for extrajudicial foreclosure and notices of embargo and auction sale, which demonstrated they were following legal procedures. The complainant's refusal to surrender the tricycles and his destructive act of tearing up the documents presented by respondent Maxino indicated his resistance to a lawful process. The presence of police officers, as testified by the policemen themselves, corroborated the respondents' account of the events, suggesting that the seizure was conducted with the necessary assistance and in a manner that aimed to enforce the court order, not to commit robbery. The complainant's failure to exercise his right of redemption after the auction sale further indicated his acquiescence to the foreclosure proceedings.
Main Doctrine
A complaint for robbery with hold-up and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against court personnel was dismissed for lack of merit, as the seizure of property was found to be in enforcement of a valid order for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, and the allegations of abuse of authority were not sufficiently substantiated.