A.M. No. P-04-1799 - Daguman vs. Bagabaldo

Renato M. Daguman, acting in his capacity as special assistant of the mortgagors (Spouses Oscar Martin and Mercedes Yvette Lopez), filed an Affidavit-Complaint dated September 20, 2002.
The complaint was directed against Melvin T. Bagabaldo, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Office of the Clerk of Court in Muntinlupa City, alleging dereliction of duty in connection with an auction sale.

The subject property, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 175895 and involved in Foreclosure Proceeding Case No. E-02-086, was set for public auction.
The auction was scheduled at 10:00 a.m. on August 28, 2002, at the Muntinlupa City Hall Quadrangle.
According to Daguman, he reported to the Clerk of Court’s office while the respondent arrived at about 11:40 a.m. and instructed him to have lunch and return at 1:00 p.m.
When Daguman returned at 1:05 p.m., the respondent informed him that the auction had already been conducted at 12:20 p.m., contrary to the scheduled time.
The respondent presented certified minutes of the auction sale, which indicated that the property was sold to DBS Bank of the Philippines, Inc.
Daguman maintained that no public auction occurred, asserting that he had been continuously present in the City Hall lobby from 10:00 a.m. until 1:05 p.m. and that the respondent did not leave his office during that period.

The respondent argued that the auction sale was carried out in strict adherence to the law.
He explained that, prior to the auction, he had posted other auction notices at the Alabang Post Office and, due to traffic delays, had informed the office of his tardiness by phone while assuring that the sale would still take place, albeit at a later time (12:00 noon originally, then executed at 12:20 p.m.).
The respondent noted that Daguman, although identified as a special assistant, failed to produce valid identification or a special power of attorney attesting to his authority.
He further asserted that he had fully explained the auction procedures to Daguman and that he diligently attempted to locate him before initiating the auction.

On February 11, 2003, Daguman filed a Motion to Withdraw the Affidavit-Complaint, explaining that his filing was made under the instructions of Dionisio Llamas, Jr.—purportedly as leverage against an opponent (BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc.).
Daguman clarified that he personally had no interest in prosecuting the case against the respondent due to his satisfactory performance by the latter.
Despite Daguman’s withdrawal, in a letter dated May 22, 2003, Angelo E. Base (representing the registered owners of the property) affirmed that the rights to pursue the administrative complaint rested with the actual mortgagors and their representatives.

Base contended that the respondent’s actions demonstrated significant procedural lapses:

Arriving late (around 11:00 a.m.) and conducting the auction without waiting for the mortgagors’ representative.
Advising Daguman to have lunch and assuring him the sale would proceed later, yet conducting it at 12:20 p.m., thereby denying the mortgagors the opportunity to witness the sale.

He argued that the minutes of auction sale were misrepresented and that the respondent failed to produce sworn statements from his colleagues to authenticate his claims of having conducted the sale properly.
The allegations also touched on the absence of proper documentation regarding the respondent’s whereabouts and the conduct of the auction.

On November 3, 2003, the Executive Judge recorded a Partial Report noting discrepancies such as the non-appearance of Daguman, necessitating a subpoena for his attendance.
Subsequent supplemental affidavits and manifestations, including an allegation of threatening remarks by Bagabaldo on October 7, 2003, were submitted by Base.
The case was scheduled for further hearings, and motions for waiver of appearance were filed by Base, emphasizing alleged improper conduct by the respondent.
During the November 25, 2003 hearing, court personnel, including a Branch Clerk, were questioned regarding these alleged incidents.

The investigative process confirmed that the respondent’s tardiness and subsequent procedural lapses led to the improper handling of the auction sale.
Although the auction sale took place, the manner in which it was conducted (including choosing to proceed without ensuring the presence of the designated mortgagors’ representative) violated the expected standard of conduct for a court officer.
The overall facts established a pattern of neglect and indifference on the part of the respondent regarding his duties.

Whether the respondent, by arriving late and proceeding with the auction sale without ensuring the presence of the authorized representative, committed acts amounting to dereliction or neglect of duty.
Whether the conduct of the auction sale adhered to established legal and procedural protocols, especially regarding the notice and presence of the mortgagors’ representative.
Whether the motion to withdraw the complaint by Daguman was proper, considering that the complaint was filed under the authority of the actual mortgagors and their representatives.
Whether the respondent’s alleged utterance of threatening remarks, as alleged by Angelo Base, constituted an additional violation of the expected conduct of a court officer.