[OCA-IPI No. 05-2168-P. March 22, 2006]

SILVERIO V. VILLASEÑOR v. JUNE L. RUBIO, SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 15, MANILA

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR. 22, 2006

OCA-IPI No. 05-2168-P (Silverio V. Villaseñor v. June L. Rubio, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 15, Manila)

For consideration is the Affidavit Complaint[1] dated 1 December 2004 filed by Silverio Villaseñor (complainant) against June L. Rubio (respondent) for Grave Abuse of Authority, Partiality, and Gross Inexcusable Negligence before the Ombudsman.

In its Evaluation Report,[2] the Office of the Ombudsman referred the complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for disposition and appropriate action.

The complaint arose from a writ of execution issued in Criminal Case No. 401928-30-CR, entitled People of the Philippines v. Arnold Villaseñor, for estafa, the dispositive portion of which reads:

NOW, THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to:

Demand from the defendant the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees. If the defendant cannot pay all or part of the obligation in cash or in check or in other mode of payment acceptable to the plaintiff, to levy upon such properties of the defendant of any kind and nature whatsoever which may be disposed of for value and not otherwise exempt from execution giving the latter the option to choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon, sufficient to satisfy the judgment. If defendant does not exercise this option, to first levy on the personal properties immediately and then the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient to answer the judgment.[3]

Complainant is the father of Arnold Villaseñor, the accused-debtor in Criminal Case No. 401928-30-CR. Complainant claims to be the absolute and registered owner of three (3) parcels of residential lots located at 2 Greenburg Street, Vista Verde, Country Homes, Cainta, Rizal. According to complainant, on 29 October 2004, at around 10 a.m., respondent, together with an NBI agent, and a certain Atty. Luis Sillano, forcibly entered his house and seized a considerable number of his personal properties, including his dining plates and cups, estimated at an amount of not less than P500,000.00. He alleges that his househelpers were present at that time and tried to prevent the group of respondent from entering the premises, but to no avail. Complainant avers that even granting for the sake of argument that respondent was in possession of a valid writ of execution, he should have aborted the implementation of the writ or deferred the plan of entering the premises after being informed that the house belongs to complainant and not to the accused. Under such circumstances, respondent should have required the prevailing party to put up a bond pursuant to Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, or make a further verification as to who is the true owner of the house before proceeding further with the enforcement of the writ. Complainant moreover asserts that respondent acted in excess of his authority and gravely abused his discretion.

In his Comment[4] dated 25 May 2005, respondent denied the allegations of complainant. Respondent claimed that in possession of a valid writ of execution and a copy of the judgment, his group went to the house of complainant and was in fact allowed and permitted by the househelpers to enter the house. Respondent communicated with accused-debtor through telephone, wherein the latter pleaded for the former not to levy his personal properties as he will be raising money to satisfy the judgment. Several hours after however, accused-debtor failed to raise the money for the judgment of P335,560.00. Respondent finally levied the personal properties of accused-debtor in the presence of the househelpers, Atty. Sillano, members of the PNP Police, two (2) barangay tanods, and the security guard of the subdivision. He denied levying any dining plates and cups. Respondent explains that the allegation that he should have posted a bond has no basis. Section 16, Rule 39 applies only when a third person claims ownership over the levied properties and executes an affidavit of his title thereto. Nevertheless, a third-party claim is no longer necessary since respondent has returned the levied properties and the same were received by the accused-debtor without objection on an "as is" basis on the same day they were levied. Respondent contends that he did not commit grave abuse of authority as he did not cause injury to any person because he just implemented a valid writ of execution.

In its Report dated 24 January 2006, the OCA recommended that the case be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

The OCA found that respondent performed his duty in accordance with a valid court order. With the specific place and location of the properties subject of the said levy indicated in the court order, the sheriff is obliged under the law to comply with its mandated ministerial duty to implement the writ as early as possible. The OCA explained that in this case, when respondent was implementing the writ, it was beyond his authority to determine the ownership of the personal properties found in the given address of the accused-debtor. The accused-debtor indicated in all his pleadings filed in court that he resides in the said address where respondent implemented the writ.

Relying further on the information given by the barangay and the security guard of the subdivision that it is the same address where accused-debtor resides, respondent cannot be faulted for implementing the writ at the said address. Complainant did not present particular proof or indication of bad faith, dishonesty, or corruption on the part of respondent that would make him administratively liable.

On the contention that some of complainant's personal properties were missing, the OCA held that the list of items subject of the levy made by respondent as a document is clothed with the presumption of regularity[5] as compared to the list of items made by complainant. Records revealed that all the levied personal properties were returned by respondent to, and were accepted by, debtor-accused without any report of damage or wreckage contrary to the allegation of complainant.

The complainant in administrative proceedings has the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint by substantial evidence. In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that respondent sheriff has regularly performed his official duties.[6] In this case, complainant failed to substantiate his claims.

Finding the OCA's recommendation to be in accord with law and the facts on record, the Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the same. The administrative complaint against Sheriff June L. Rubio is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

[5] Citing Sayson v. Luna, A.M. No. P-04-1829, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 502, 505.

[6] De La Cruz v. Bato, A.M. No. P-05-1959, 15 February 2005, 451 SCRA 330, 337.