Licudine v. Saquilayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Erlinda Y. Licudine charged Atty. Wilfredo P. Saquilayan, Branch Clerk of Court, and Sheriff Wilmar M. De Villa with dishonesty and misconduct concerning the execution of judgment in Civil Case No. 1470-97. Licudine was the defendant in a case for damages where the trial court ordered her to pay plaintiff Prudencio Dolon ₱261,363.41. After the decision became final, a writ of execution was issued, and Sheriff De Villa levied upon Licudine's Honda Civic car, scheduling it for auction. The parties, in the presence of respondents and others, orally agreed that Licudine would pay Dolon ₱120,000.00 on installment instead of the awarded amount. Respondents allegedly assured Licudine that the case would be terminated upon full payment. Licudine paid ₱50,000.00 to Sheriff De Villa, who acknowledged receipt, and executed a promissory note for the remaining ₱70,000.00, which she paid on January 30, 1998. Licudine was surprised to learn that Sheriff De Villa issued a Sheriff's Return stating the writ was 'Partially Satisfied.' Subsequently, Sheriff De Villa levied upon Licudine's L-300 van and scheduled it for auction. The van was sold for ₱60,000.00 to Dolon. When Licudine protested, Sheriff De Villa told her to redeem the van for ₱60,000.00, but later refused to accept the amount, stating she did not understand. Licudine alleged that respondents misrepresented that her payment of ₱120,000.00 would satisfy the judgment and that Atty. Saquilayan received ₱2,000.00 as a professional fee for arranging the compromise. Procedural History: Complainant Licudine later filed a letter asking for the withdrawal of her complaint for personal reasons. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondents to file their comment. Respondents denied the allegations, stating the complaint resulted from a misunderstanding and that they committed no fault, negligence, or dishonesty. Sheriff De Villa explained the sequence of events regarding the execution and the parties' failure to formalize their compromise agreement in writing. He stated he never demanded money and acted with fear of God and respect for his dignity and family. Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez recommended the dismissal of the complaint but advised respondents to be more circumspect. The Supreme Court agreed that the record lacked evidence of material benefit to respondents but disagreed that they initiated the settlement. The Court noted that the complainant's withdrawal left the charges unsubstantiated. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed by Erlinda Y. Licudine against Branch Clerk of Court Wilfredo P. Saquilayan and Sheriff Wilmar M. De Villa for dishonesty and misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether the withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant warrants the dismissal of the administrative case. Whether the respondents committed dishonesty and misconduct in relation to the execution of judgment in Civil Case No. 1470-97.
Ruling
The administrative complaint against Branch Clerk of Court Wilfredo P. Saquilayan and Sheriff Wilmar M. De Villa is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the withdrawal of the complaint: The Court reiterated the settled rule that a complainant's withdrawal of their complaint or desistance from pursuing it does not necessarily warrant the dismissal of an administrative case. The outcome of an administrative action cannot depend on the will or pleasure of the complainant, as such withdrawal does not divest the Court of its jurisdiction to investigate and decide complaints against erring employees of the judiciary. However, the Court acknowledged that there are instances where an administrative case cannot proceed without the active cooperation of the complainant, leaving the Court with no alternative but to dismiss the complaint. In this case, the complainant's withdrawal left the charges against the respondents unsubstantiated. On the alleged dishonesty and misconduct: The Court agreed with the Deputy Court Administrator's finding that the record was bereft of any evidence showing that the respondents benefited materially from the transactions complained about. Furthermore, the Court found no positive evidence on record that the respondents initiated the amicable settlement of the money judgment. Specifically, the allegation that respondent Atty. Saquilayan demanded and received ₱2,000.00 as a professional fee for initiating the agreement was not proven. In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations by substantial evidence. In the absence of contrary evidence, the presumption that the respondents regularly performed their official duties prevails.
Main Doctrine
The withdrawal of a complaint by a complainant does not necessarily warrant the dismissal of an administrative case, as the Court retains jurisdiction to investigate and decide complaints against erring judiciary employees. However, if the complainant's withdrawal leaves the charges unsubstantiated and there is no other evidence to prove the allegations, the case may be dismissed.