SECOND DIVISION
JOSEFA C.
CHUPUNGCO,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-03-1758
(formerly A.M.
No.
OCA I.P.I. 03-1553-P)
December 10, 2003
-versus-
BENJAMIN L.
CABUSAO,
JR., DEPUTY SHERIFF III,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURT, PASIG CITY, BRANCH 68,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O
N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
Before the Court
is the affidavit-complaint dated September 3, 2002 filed by Josefa C.
Chupungco
against respondent Benjamin L. Cabusao, Jr., Deputy Sheriff III of the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig City, Branch 68, for
oppression
and grave abuse of authority. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The complainant, Chupungco,
was one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 4199, an unlawful detainer
case, entitled Spouses Francisco and Juanita Sotto v. Josefa Chupungco
and Amariley Genova. She filed the present administrative complaint
against
the respondent relative to his allegedly malicious, oppressive and
unlawful
implementation of the writ of execution issued in the aforesaid case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It appears that on March
17, 1995, the MeTC promulgated its judgment in Civil Case No. 4199 in
favor
of the plaintiffs and against the complainant and her co-defendant
ordering
them to, inter alia, "vacate the subject parcel of land located at
Tanangco
St., Buting, Pasig, Metro Manila."[1]
Upon motion of Spouses Sotto (the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 4199),
the
MeTC issued a writ of execution on August 26, 1998, directing the
respondent
as the deputy sheriff to enforce the decision. On June 27, 2000, the
respondent
filed his return on the unsatisfactory service of the writ of
execution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 7, 2000,
the Spouses Sotto filed a motion for issuance of an alias writ of
execution
which the MeTC granted. In the meantime, the complainant's motion for
reconsideration
having been denied, she filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Pasig
City a petition for certiorari with an application for a temporary
restraining
order. The same was dismissed by the RTC, Branch 70, on June 25, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When the complainant
and her co-defendant failed to comply with the alias writ of execution,
the MeTC on April 9, 2002 issued a writ ordering the demolition of the
improvements they erected on the subject lot. The notice of demolition
was served on the daughters of the complainant's co-defendant, Genova,
on July 11, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 16, 2002, the
respondent implemented the writ of demolition. The complainant was not
then around, as she had to file a petition for certiorari with the
Court
of Appeals questioning the RTC Decision dismissing her petition. The
demolition
was witnessed by the complainant's neighbors, including Asuncion
Camacan,
who is the complainant's sister, as well as Rossana Genova and Rowena
Gallano.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her affidavit-complaint,
the complainant alleged that the respondent, accompanied by thirteen
(13)
members of the demolition team, despite notice of her absence, "broke,
destroyed and shattered in violent, harsh and inhuman manner" her
"cherished
sanctuarial home."[2]
The respondent and his cohorts ransacked her house of its valuables
amounting
to P300,000 and took her P50,000 cash. She placed the value of her
house
at P900,000.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The complainant further
alleged that the respondent, together with the demolition team, hauled
the complainant's belongings and the materials of the house onto a
truck.
Some of these belongings were dumped on the nearby river while the
materials
of the demolished house were sold off to a buyer in Mandaluyong City.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In support of her
affidavit-complaint
and its annexes, the complainant likewise submitted the affidavit of
her
sister Asuncion Camacan. Camacan stated that she witnessed the
demolition
of the complainant's house and saw the respondent and his team haul the
complainant's personal belongings on a truck.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For his part, the
respondent
categorically denied the charges against him. He averred that the
complainant
had also filed a motion to cite him for indirect contempt before the
RTC
of Pasig City, Branch 70, in connection with the same incident. The
same
was denied for lack of merit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon the recommendation
of Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock, the Court, in the
resolution
of July 9, 2003, referred the administrative complaint to Executive
Judge
Jose R. Hernandez, RTC, Pasig City, for investigation, report and
recommendation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In compliance therewith,
Judge Hernandez conducted the investigation. In addition to the
affidavit-complaint
and its annexes, the complainant likewise submitted to the
investigating
judge the affidavits of Rossana Genova, Rowena Gallano and Ismael
Mejia.
The respondent, on the other hand, manifested his willingness to submit
the case for resolution. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his report dated
October 17, 2003, the investigating judge found that there was no
substantive
evidence to support the complainant's accusations of oppression and
grave
abuse of authority against the respondent. In implementing the writ of
execution, the respondent even sought the assistance of the police and
barangay officials, including Rogelio Cruz, Executive Officer of the
Barangay
Security Force of Buting, Pasig City. The spouses Sotto also hired a
lipat-bahay
crew to assist in the implementation of the writ of demolition. That
there
were no belongings of value in the complainant's house, as claimed by
the
respondent, is supported by the certification issued by Cruz as well as
the photographs of the complainant's house and its interior immediately
prior to and after the demolition.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to the investigating
judge, the complainant failed to substantiate her claim that her house
was worth P900,000 and that there were personal properties therein
amounting
to P300,000 as well as cash in the amount of P50,000.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The investigating judge,
however, noted that the respondent failed to give any explanation as to
what happened to the belongings of the complainant and the materials of
her house that the respondent and the demolition team hauled onto a
"lipat-bahay"
truck. According to the investigating judge, the respondent's lack of
vigilance
over the complainant's personal properties is inexcusable. The
investigating
judge thus recommended:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sheriff
Cabusao
should be strongly reprimanded for failing to observe vigilance over
the
materials of the house demolished pursuant to the writ of demolition
issued
by MeTC Branch 68 in Civil Case No. 4199. This should be without
prejudice
to whatever civil action Chupungco may institute to recover the
materials
of the demolished house or their actual value against the parties
responsible
for the appropriation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Be that as it may,
the
charges of oppression and grave abuse of authority against Sheriff
Cabusao
should be dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court agrees with
the investigating judge that the respondent is administratively liable.
Time and again, we have emphasized the heavy burden and responsibility
which court personnel are saddled with in view of their exalted
positions
as keepers of public faith. They must be constantly reminded that any
impression
of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official
functions
must be avoided.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Specifically, sheriffs
and deputy sheriffs, being ranking officers of the court and agents of
the law, must discharge their duties with great care and diligence. In
serving and implementing court writs, as well as processes and orders
of
the court, they cannot afford to err without affecting adversely the
proper
dispensation of justice.[7]
Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice and as
agents of the law, high standards are expected of them.[8]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Good faith on the part
of the respondent sheriff, or lack of it, in proceeding to properly
execute
his mandate would be of no moment, for he is chargeable with the
knowledge
that being an officer of the court tasked therefor, it behooves him to
make due compliance. He is expected to live up to the exacting
standards
of his office and his conduct must at all times be characterized by
rectitude
and forthrightness, and so above suspicion and mistrust as well.[9]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We do not agree,
however,
that the respondent should be merely reprimanded for his actuations. By
his lack of vigilance over the personal properties belonging to the
complainant
which were placed in his (the respondent's) custody upon the
implementation
of the writ of demolition, the respondent failed to live up to the
exacting
standards required of an officer of the Court. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For his failure to exercise
reasonable diligence in the performance of his duties as an officer of
the court,[10]
respondent Benjamin L. Cabusao, Jr., Deputy Sheriff III of the
Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig City, Branch 68, is hereby FINED an amount
of P5,000. He is STERNLY WARNED that any repetition of the same act in
the future will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this
decision
be entered in the respondent's personal record.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez
and Tinga, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id. at 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Report, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 4–5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Loyao, Jr. v. Armecin, 337 SCRA 47 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Magat v. Pimentel, Jr., 346 SCRA 153 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Llamado v. Ravelo, 280 SCRA 597 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Villaluz Vda. de Enriquez v. Bautista, 331 SCRA 521 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Bilag-Rivera v. Flora, 245 SCRA 603 (1995).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |