A.M. No. P-17-3652 - Begay vs. Saguyod

Willy Fred U. Begay filed an Affidavit-Complaint against Atty. Paulino I. Saguyod, Clerk of Court VI, RTC, Branch 67, Paniqui, Tarlac, and George P. Clemente, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 67, Paniqui, Tarlac.
The complaint alleged gross misconduct, discourteous acts, manifest partiality, and grave abuse of authority.

Begay claimed he owned Garden of Samantha Memorial Park in Estacion, Paniqui, Tarlac.
The memorial park consisted of three (3) parcels of land and was under litigation in Civil Case No. 008-13 filed by Begay against Rural Bank of San Luis Pampanga, Inc. before the RTC, Paniqui, Tarlac.
In Civil Case No. 008-13, Begay prayed for nullification of real estate mortgages and related transactions, including foreclosure proceedings, transfer of titles, award of damages, and issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction pendente lite commanding the Rural Bank to desist from obtaining possession of the memorial park.
On 2 December 2014, the Rural Bank filed an ex parte motion for issuance of a writ of possession, docketed as Land Case No. 041-14.
The Rural Bank claimed it purchased a parcel covered by TCT No. 043-2014005232 (one of the parcels comprising the memorial park) through an extrajudicial foreclosure sale per Certificate of Sale dated 5 February 2013.
The prayer for the writ of possession was directed against Alejandro P. Bautista, former owner of the property, and all other persons who might be in possession.
Begay alleged the Rural Bank failed to disclose in its ex parte motion that:

Begay was in possession of the lot in the concept of an owner.
Bautista and any other individual had not acquired actual possession of the property.
Civil Case No. 008-13 was pending before the RTC, questioning the circumstances by which the property was transferred to Bautista at the Rural Bank’s instance and direction.

In an Order dated 17 April 2015, the trial court granted the ex parte motion and directed the Branch Clerk of Court to issue the writ of possession.
On 20 April 2015, respondent Atty. Saguyod issued the Writ of Possession addressed to the court’s Deputy Sheriff, respondent Clemente.

Upon receipt of the writ, respondent Clemente issued a notice to vacate addressed to Begay, even though Begay was not a party to Land Case No. 041-14 and was not mentioned in the ex parte motion.
Begay filed a Motion to Quash dated 21 April 2015 questioning the propriety of the writ of possession and requesting to be allowed to speak during the hearing on 30 April 2015.
Begay alleged Atty. Saguyod failed to include him in the hearing.
Begay asserted that he was the real owner in actual possession and that his due process was violated because he was not made a party to the foreclosure proceedings and the ex parte motion.
Begay added that a controversy relative to the foreclosure existed and that the issue of ownership required resolution in a full-blown trial.

Begay alleged that despite the pendency of his motion to quash, on 19 May 2015 a group led by respondents implemented the writ and forcibly took possession of a portion of the memorial park, particularly the lot covered by TCT No. 043-2014005232.
Begay alleged that during the takeover respondent Clemente ordered Security Guard Rolando M. Tabilisima to vacate his post and to be immediately disarmed.
Begay alleged that the security guards and security agency posted by Atty. Saguyod and Clemente were not licensed under Republic Act No. 5487 as amended.
Begay stated that a certification issued by the Supervisory Office for Security and Investigation Agencies (SOSIA) of the National Police Commission showed that Golden Fort Security Agency was not registered and had no record on file.

Begay challenged the dates when Atty. Saguyod received the evidence of the Rural Bank and when he conducted the ex parte hearing.
Begay relied on the trial court’s Order dated 17 April 2015, which stated that on 19 March 2015, after examining all exhibits, the trial court admitted the exhibits and the petition was submitted for resolution.
Begay asserted it was not possible for Atty. Saguyod to have conducted the ex parte hearing for reception of the Rural Bank’s evidence prior to or not later than 19 March 2015.
Begay claimed the Rural Bank submitted the judicial affidavit of its witness only on 6 April 2015 and made the formal offer of exhibits received by the trial court on 8 April 2015.

Participation of Atty. Saguyod during implementation and demeanor toward Begay’s staff

Begay alleged it was highly questionable that Atty. Saguyod participated in implementation because it was allegedly beyond his functions as Clerk of Court.
Begay alleged Atty. Saguyod was not merely an observer but actively participated, conferring with officers and lawyers of the Rural Bank during implementation.
Begay alleged Atty. Saguyod shouted invectives at Begay’s employees and ordered them to leave the premises.
Begay alleged respondents planned the implementation and immediately posted a large notice that the Rural Bank was placed in possession pursuant to the trial court’s writ.

The trial court, in an Order dated 9 June 2015, granted Begay’s motion to quash and allowed Begay to take possession of the property covered by TCT No. 043-2014005232 until after the case would be resolved with finality.
Begay alleged that the Order dated 17 April 2015, the Writ of Possession dated 20 April 2015, and the Notice to Vacate dated 20 April 2015 were recalled and set aside.

(Subscriber-Only)

Whether Atty. Paulino I. Saguyod committed a punishable misconduct in relation to the issuance and/or implementation of the writ of possession

Whether Atty. Saguyod could be administratively held liable despite the writ and implementation being issued in accordance with the trial court’s order.
Whether Atty. Saguyod exceeded the proper functions of a clerk of court as an ex officio sheriff when he was present and participated in implementation.
Whether Atty. Saguyod’s presence and conduct at the scene, including alleged intimidation and invectives, constituted misconduct.

Determination of the proper administrative offense and penalty for Atty. Saguyod

Whether the misconduct was simple or grave, considering the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.
Whether the penalty should be dismissal based on ...(Subscriber-Only)