Case Digest (A.M. No. P-11-2944)
Facts:
The case involves a complaint filed by Carol A. Abadiano, Cleofe Abadiano-Bonachita, Ryan M. Abadiano, and Cherry Mae M. Abadiano (the complainants) against Generoso B. Regalado, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Cebu City (the respondent). The complaint was lodged on February 4, 2010, before the Office of the Court Administrator, alleging grave abuse of authority, oppression, and gross misconduct by Regalado. The complainants are the legitimate heirs of the late spouses Pablo and Teodora Abadiano, who were judicially recognized by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Cebu City, as entitled to their respective shares in the properties of the deceased.
The events leading to the complaint began when their father, Pablo Abadiano, was hospitalized, incurring significant medical and hospital expenses. Their brother, Armando Abadiano, sought permission from the court to encumber certain properties of their father to cover these expenses. On December 1, 2004, the...
Case Digest (A.M. No. P-11-2944)
Facts:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Penalty Imposed:
- Given the circumstances, the Court deemed a fine of ₱10,000.00 appropriate, with a stern warning against future misconduct.