Title
Abadiano vs. Regalado
Case
A.M. No. P-11-2944
Decision Date
Jul 27, 2011
A sheriff's unauthorized actions, including accepting a Special Power of Attorney and threatening heirs during a property dispute, led to a misconduct ruling and a ₱10,000 fine.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-11-2944)

Facts:

  1. Background of the Case:

    • The complainants, Carol A. Abadiano, Cleofe Abadiano-Bonachita, Ryan M. Abadiano, and Cherry Mae M. Abadiano, are the legitimate heirs of the late spouses Pablo and Teodora Abadiano. They were judicially recognized as entitled to their respective shares in the properties of the deceased.
    • Armando Abadiano, their brother, filed a motion before the court to dispose or encumber certain properties of their late father to cover medical and hospital expenses. The court granted the motion on December 1, 2004, with the condition that the proceeds be used strictly for the said expenses.
  2. Unauthorized Loan and Mortgage:

    • Without informing his siblings or obtaining court approval, Armando obtained a loan exceeding the amount needed for the expenses and mortgaged one of their late father's properties.
    • The mortgagee, Alfredo Genosolango, initiated a Petition for Extra-Judicial Foreclosure with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16, Cebu City.
  3. Annulment Case and Writ of Possession:

    • The complainants filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Loan Agreement, Real Estate Mortgage, Damages, and Attorney's Fees (annulment case) before RTC Branch 23.
    • On January 25, 2008, while the annulment case was pending, respondent Generoso B. Regalado, Sheriff IV of RTC Branch 16, served a Writ of Possession, placing Genosolango in actual possession of the mortgaged property.
    • The complainants filed a Verified Motion/Petition to Cancel the Writ of Possession, but it was denied.
  4. Incident on October 10, 2009:

    • Regalado prevented the complainants from collecting rentals from the property's occupants and threatened them with estafa if they persisted.
    • He claimed that the complainants had already lost the case and that a motion for reconsideration would be denied.
    • Regalado presented a Special Power of Attorney executed by Genosolango, authorizing him to act on his behalf.
  5. Respondent's Defense:

    • Regalado denied the allegations, claiming he was merely performing his duty in implementing the Writ of Possession.
    • He denied using the Special Power of Attorney, calling it a "stray paper," and stated that Genosolango's lawyer received the rentals.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Conflict of Interest:

    • Regalado's acceptance of a Special Power of Attorney from Genosolango, while simultaneously performing his duties as a sheriff, constituted a conflict of interest. This act was deemed improper and prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
  2. Misconduct in Office:

    • Sheriffs, as officers of the court, are expected to adhere to high ethical standards and avoid any conduct that may diminish public trust in the judiciary. Regalado's actions, including his moonlighting activity and threats to the complainants, violated these standards.
  3. Precedent on Moonlighting:

    • The Court cited previous cases where sheriffs were penalized for moonlighting or engaging in private activities related to their official duties. Such actions amount to malfeasance in office and warrant disciplinary action.
  4. Penalty Imposed:

    • Given the circumstances, the Court deemed a fine of ₱10,000.00 appropriate, with a stern warning against future misconduct.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.