A.M. No. P-09-2668 - Astorga and Repol Law Offices vs. Villanueva

Complainant: Astorga and Repol Law Offices, a professional law practice partnership represented by Atty. Arnold B. Lugares.
Respondent: Alexander D. Villanueva, Sheriff IV of Branch 60 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.
The administrative complaint was filed by Astorga and Repol Law Offices alleging willful neglect of duty, serious misconduct due to graft and corruption, and extortion.

Astorga and Repol Law Offices represented FGU Insurance Corporation in a damages complaint against NEC Cargo Services, Inc. filed before the RTC of Makati City, raffled to Branch 66.
Judge Ricardo R. Rosario rendered a decision awarding the plaintiff a substantial monetary judgment including principal, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Subsequent appeals before the Court of Appeals were denied, and a Writ of Execution was issued, though initial execution was frustrated by complications (e.g., property levied and subsequent third-party claims).

On September 19, 2008, Judge Joselito C. Villarosa authorized a motion to appoint a Special Sheriff to implement the decision.
Sheriff Villanueva was assigned to execute the decision and began coordinating with Atty. Lugares beginning on October 29, 2008.
A series of text messages exchanged between the parties on November 24 and November 26, 2008, reveal attempts to set an appointment for the service of the Notices of Garnishment.

During their meeting on November 24, 2008 at the Makati City Hall, Sheriff Villanueva allegedly demanded a sum (initially P8,000.00, then lowered to P5,000.00) in the context of executing the decision.
Text messages from the respondent, using terms such as “acolorsa” and references to “legal fees,” were presented as evidence that he sought money in exchange for carrying out his official duties.
Atty. Lugares asserted that his request for assistance was strictly in relation to garnishing shares and unpaid subscriptions on stocks and that the demand for money constituted an illegal and improper act.

Several text messages were exchanged between Sheriff Villanueva and Atty. Lugares; while outgoing messages from Atty. Lugares were automatically deleted from his cellular phone, incoming messages from the respondent remained available.
Atty. Lugares produced photographs of his cellphone screens and a calling card correlating with the number used by the respondent, thereby identifying the source of the texts.
Testimonies, including that of Atty. Engracio M. EscasiAas, Jr. and the account of coordinated meetings (some contradicted by respondent), were central to establishing the timeline and substance of the alleged misconduct.

Respondent maintained inconsistent positions regarding whether any meeting occurred and whether any demand for money was made.
Earlier investigations conducted by Executive Judge Cornejo, Judge Salvador, and Executive Judge Pozon evaluated the allegations based on available evidence, including the text messages, witness testimonies, and affidavits.
Previous administrative cases involving sheriffs (e.g., Araza v. Garcia, Judge Tan v. Paredes) were referenced, highlighting similar misconduct in the demand for unlawful fees.

The Office of the Court Administrator initially recommended the dismissal of the complaint due to lack of evidence, considering Atty. Lugares’ failure to preserve outgoing text messages.
A later Compliance with Motion for Reconsideration by Atty. Lugares reopened the investigation, prompting additional hearings and submission of memoranda by both parties.
The reopened proceedings brought additional evidence and clarifications regarding the alleged extortion and neglect of duty, setting the stage for the Supreme Court’s review.

Whether Sheriff Alexander D. Villanueva committed misconduct by way of willful neglect of duty in failing to properly execute the Writ of Execution.
Whether the respondent’s actions constitute graft and corruption or extortion, specifically by demanding money in connection with the execution of Notices of Garnishment.
Whether the text messages exchanged between Sheriff Villanueva and Atty. Lugares provide substantial evidence to support the allegations of misconduct.
Whether the respondent’s conduct violated the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and Rule 141, Section 10 of the Rules of Court concerning the solicitation of fees.
Whether the established findings in similar cases (e.g., Araza v. Garcia and Judge Tan v. Paredes) justify imposing administrative sanctions including dismissal from service.