Aguilar v. Valino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rosalinda C. Aguilar charged Ronberto B. Valino, Deputy Sheriff IV of RTC, Branch 70, Pasig City, with grave misconduct and dishonesty. A Court of Appeals (CA) decision ordered Aguilar to pay Victoria Lee ₱866,828.90. On February 13, 2007, Aguilar filed an Urgent Verified Omnibus Motion to enjoin the auction sale of her properties scheduled for February 14, 2007. On February 14, 2007, Judge Lorifel Lacap Pahimna issued an Order directing respondent Valino to stop the scheduled auction until further orders and to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt and administratively charged for insubordination for failing to comply with a verbal order to report for clarification and for failing to submit periodic reports on the writ of execution. Procedural History: Judge Pahimna instructed Process Server Sonny B. Reyes to serve the Order and verify if the auction was proceeding. Reyes and Court Stenographer Liza Galvez, also sent by Judge Pahimna, arrived at the auction venue before 10:00 a.m. but respondent Valino did not appear. Despite the court order to stop the sale, a Certificate of Sale was issued by respondent Valino in favor of Hector Lee Yu for ₱6,680,500.00, allegedly during an auction sale held on February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in front of the Municipal Building of Pateros. Respondent Valino denied the charges, claiming he was unaware of the motion, had stomach pain on February 13, and proceeded directly to the auction venue on February 14 where the auction took place with Lee's son as the sole bidder. He alleged the accusations were to harass him for not succumbing to a bribe. The case was referred to the Executive Judge of RTC, Pasig City for investigation, who found respondent guilty of grave misconduct and recommended suspension and admonishment. The Court referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation. The OCA found respondent guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty for introducing a falsified Certificate of Sale and recommended his dismissal from the service. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Ronberto B. Valino is guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty. Whether the auction sale conducted on February 14, 2007, was valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Ronberto B. Valino, Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Pasig City, GUILTY of grave misconduct and dishonesty. He was DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave misconduct and dishonesty: The Court found that the complainant, Rosalinda C. Aguilar, discharged the burden of proving her allegations by substantial evidence. Multiple witnesses, including court employees and a building custodian, testified that no auction sale took place on February 14, 2007, at the Pateros Municipal Hall as claimed by respondent. Their testimonies were consistent and unwavering, and they had no ill motive to testify against the respondent. In contrast, respondent's lone witness, Rainer V. Galsim, who was the driver of Victoria Lee (the winning bidder's mother), provided vague and unconvincing testimony about the auction. Galsim admitted he only knew it was an auction sale because Victoria Lee told him so, and he could only recall hearing the words "auction sale" and "no bidders." He also stated he was merely accompanying Lee and her son and stayed at a distance. Furthermore, Rolando Alejandro, who purportedly signed as a witness to the auction sale, testified that he was never a witness to such an auction, was absent on the day it allegedly occurred, and was tricked into signing the document by a woman who later tried to bribe him to affirm his supposed witnessing of the sale. Respondent's explanation for his absence and unavailability on the day of the auction, citing stomach pain and later a flu, was deemed a lame excuse, especially considering the efforts of Judge Pahimna and court staff to contact him to stop the sale. The Court concluded that respondent had every intent of undertaking a corrupt and illegal scheme by presenting a fictitious auction. His act of introducing a falsified Certificate of Sale, purporting an auction sale was conducted when it was not, clearly shows an intent to disregard the law and constitutes grave misconduct that corrodes respect for the courts, and amounts to dishonesty by lying and deceiving. On the validity of the auction sale: The Court found that the auction sale was not valid. Judge Pahimna issued an Order directing respondent to stop the scheduled auction sale until further orders from the court, considering the pendency of an Urgent Omnibus Motion and the need to thresh out issues. Despite this explicit order, respondent proceeded to issue a Certificate of Sale. The testimonies of multiple witnesses confirmed that no auction was held at the time and place indicated. Moreover, respondent failed to provide a computation of the amount payable to the judgment obligee before the auction sale. He also sold the property for ₱6,680,500.00, significantly higher than the amount awarded by the Court of Appeals (₱866,829.00 plus legal interest), admitting he based his computation on the trial court's decision despite being aware of the CA's modification. This conduct clearly ignored Section 9(a), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which mandates immediate payment on demand and proper procedures for execution of judgments for money. The Court emphasized that sheriffs, as ranking officers of the court and keepers of public faith, must discharge their duties with due care, utmost diligence, and be above suspicion, maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court. Respondent's failure to do so, and his actions that erode faith and confidence in the administration of justice, warranted his dismissal.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff found guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty for conducting a fictitious auction sale and falsifying a certificate of sale, despite a court order to stop the sale, is dismissed from service.