G.R. No. L-4352 - Borovsky vs. Commissioner of Immigration

Ask AI

G.R. No. L-4352: Borovsky vs. Commissioner of Immigration

Getting related questions...
What do you want to know about the case?
Ask AI quickly gives answers based only on the current context to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.

New Chat Started

Ask AI

Title Source: Supreme Court: De Guzman, Jr. vs. Mendoza

Case: A.M. No. P-03-1693

Decision Date: Mar 17, 2005

Sheriff Antonio Mendoza suspended for one year without pay for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and unauthorized fee collection during execution of void alias writ.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4352)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Parties and Nature of the Case

Complainant: Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr.
Respondents:

Antonio O. Mendoza, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 58
Floro G. Calixihan, Jr., Branch Clerk of Court of the same branch

Nature of the Complaint:

Filed for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the judiciary
Allegation of connivance in causing the issuance of an alias writ of execution
Charge of profiting from collecting monthly rentals from the tenants of the subject property

Chronology of Events and Documentary Discrepancies

May 2, 1988:

RTC Makati City, Branch 58 rendered decision in Civil Case No. 979 (plaintiffs represented by the complainant)

October 13, 2000:

A writ of execution was issued by Judge Escolastico U. Cruz, Jr. ordering cancellation of the notice of lis pendens and payment of attorney’s fees

April 4, 2001:

An alias writ of execution/possession/ejectment/demolition and others was issued, directing actions that extended beyond the May 2, 1988 decision
The alias writ included transferring possession, ejectment, collection of monthly rentals, and demolition orders

Implementation of the Writ:

Respondent sheriff, together with Atty. Melotindos (counsel for the defendant), proceeded to the subject property
Served a Notice to Comply upon five tenants
Allegedly intimidated tenants to vacate, paid monthly rentals of ₱50,000.00, and demolish structures
Noted omission: Failure to attach page 3 of the alias writ which contained the signatory, date, and the dispositive portion of the May 2, 1988 decision

Subsequent Rental Collection and Anomalies:

From May 2001 until March 2002, gatherings were held at Noytsias Panciteria where Atty. Melotindos collected rentals
Receipts were issued in the name of Soledad S.M. Del Rosario, a party unrelated to the case
On one occasion, Calixihan issued a Receipt for a Stay of Execution in the absence of the respondent sheriff
The respondent sheriff’s remarks regarding the handling of the collected money further complicated the matter

Administrative and Investigative Developments

March 7, 2003:

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued an Agenda Report noting that the alias writs had been declared null and void by the en banc Resolution dated September 18, 2001

Disposition of Complaints:

Complaint against Calixihan was dismissed following the OCA’s recommendation
Complaint against respondent sheriff was docketed as a regular proceeding and referred for investigation

Report and Findings (August 19, 2004):

Executive Judge Sixto Marella, Jr. found the respondent sheriff guilty of simple misconduct
Identified unauthorized receipt of fees from tenancy collections: ₱24,000.00 and ₱1,500.00 from tenants, plus an additional ₱500.00 collected from Atty. Melotindos as legal fees (which exceeded the fee limits under Section 9, Rule 141)

Contention on Roles and Responsibilities

Dispute over responsibility:

Calixihan argued he was merely implementing the judge’s issuance of the void alias writ and did not profit from the rentals
The respondent sheriff contended that he was strictly executing the court’s orders without any authority over the issuance of writs

Nature of the Act:

The court characterized the execution of a writ as a ministerial duty
However, collecting fees beyond the lawful limits and failing to follow due process on expense liquidation exposed performing actions beyond mere execution

Monetary Discrepancies and Procedural Violations

Rule 141, Section 9 of the Rules of Court mandates:

Estimation and approval of expenses by the sheriff
Disbursement and liquidation of approved amounts

Breaches in the case:

Respondent sheriff’s failure to submit an estimate of expenses
Collection of amounts (specifically the ₱500.00 legal fee) in excess of the prescribed limits
Demand and collection of ₱1,500.00 for ancillary expenses (lunch and merienda for accompanying policemen), despite such amounts not being authorized

Issues:

Whether the respondent sheriff’s act of enforcing the alias writ—even if void—was purely ministerial in nature, or if he assumed discretionary functions beyond his jurisdiction.

Examination of his duty to strictly implement court orders versus determining their validity.

Whether the omission of attaching the complete alias writ (missing page with pertinent details) constitutes an act of connivance with his co-respondent.

Assessment of the significance of this omission in relation to the wrongful execution order.

Whether the respondent sheriff’s collection of unauthorized fees (exceeding the limit prescribed under Section 9, Rule 141) amounts to grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the judiciary.

Evaluation of the collection of ₱500.00 and ₱1,500.00 against the authorized procedures.

Whether his actions of gathering tenants and personally accepting fees, with no valid explanation or proper documentation, further aggravated his misconduct notwithstanding his claim of mere ministerial execution.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

END