Reyes v. Jamora
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Alberto II Borbon Reyes, counsel for a defendant in Civil Case No. 01-887, alleged that respondents, court officials of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 56, engaged in usurpation of authority and grave abuse of authority. The underlying dispute stemmed from a judgment rendered on December 9, 2004, in favor of the plaintiff in the aforementioned civil case. Reyes claimed that despite filing a petition for relief from judgment on July 4, 2005, which was later granted, a writ of execution had already been issued and executed, allegedly unbeknownst to him. He further alleged an over-levy on his client's properties and the loss of his petition for relief from judgment. Procedural History: Following the issuance of a Writ of Execution on June 29, 2005, and its subsequent execution, Atty. Reyes filed an administrative complaint against Clerk of Court V Richard C. Jamora, Deputy Sheriff IV Lucito Alejo, and Clerk III Eulogio T. Mondido. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed the respondents to file their comments. After reviewing the comments, the OCA recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative complaint and referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for investigation. Executive Judge Winlove M. Dumayas conducted the investigation and concluded that the allegations of usurpation and grave abuse of authority were unsubstantiated, recommending exoneration for all respondents, but suggesting a reprimand for Sheriff Alejo for neglect of duty in failing to comply with Rule 141 of the Rules of Court regarding legal fees. The OCA adopted these findings and recommendations. The Petition: The administrative complaint, filed by Atty. Reyes, alleged usurpation of authority and grave abuse of authority against the respondents. Specifically, Reyes contended that the Writ of Execution was issued and implemented before his petition for relief from judgment was filed and acted upon, and that there was an excessive levy on his client's properties. He also accused respondent Mondido of losing the copy of the petition for relief. The Supreme Court, however, found no evidence to substantiate these claims, noting that the issuance of the writ was within Jamora's duties and that Alejo was performing a ministerial duty. The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but admonished Sheriff Alejo to be more vigilant in complying with the payment of fees required under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court when implementing writs of execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondents committed usurpation of authority and grave abuse of authority. Whether Deputy Sheriff IV Lucito Alejo was liable for hasty implementation of the writ of execution and over-levy. Whether Clerk III Eulogio T. Mondido was liable for the loss of the petition for relief from judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Atty. Richard C. Jamora, Sheriff Lucito V. Alejo, and Eulogio T. Mondido for lack of merit. Respondent Alejo was admonished to be more vigilant in complying with the payment of fees as required under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court in the implementation of writs of execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the allegations of usurpation of authority and grave abuse of authority: The Court found no evidence to substantiate these claims. It reiterated the principle that in administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations with substantial evidence. In the absence of such proof, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by court officials and personnel prevails. The issuance of the Writ of Execution was within Jamora's scope of duties, and Reyes failed to prove that no writ was issued when his petition for relief was filed. Mondido was not liable as he did not receive the petition, and the allegation of collusion was baseless. The Court cannot give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation. On the alleged hasty implementation of the writ of execution and over-levy by Sheriff Alejo: The Court found this claim unmeritorious. It is the ministerial duty of a sheriff to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to implement a writ of execution once placed in his hands. He has no discretion whether to execute the writ or not; he is mandated to uphold the law. In this case, Sheriff Alejo was merely performing his ministerial duty. However, the Court admonished Alejo to pay the required fees before the implementation of the writ of execution, as mandated by Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. Regarding the over-levy, the Court noted that the total obligation, including damages and fees, exceeded the value of the levied properties, and the judgment stated solidary liability, thus negating the claim of over-levy. On the alleged loss of the petition for relief from judgment by Clerk III Eulogio T. Mondido: The Court found this allegation baseless. Mondido's comment clarified that he was not the one who received the petition for relief, and he was not in charge of civil cases at the time of the alleged loss. Therefore, the complainant's claim that Mondido connived with others to prejudice his client's rights was completely unsubstantiated.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed an administrative complaint against court personnel for usurpation of authority and grave abuse of authority due to lack of substantial evidence. The Court reiterated that bare allegations cannot overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. While a sheriff was reminded of the need to comply with Rule 141 regarding the payment of fees for the implementation of a writ of execution, the complaint against him for hasty implementation was found unmeritorious as he was merely performing his ministerial duty.