Case Digest (A.M. No. P-09-2644)
Case Digest (A.M. No. P-09-2644)
Facts:
Edgardo A. Quilo v. Rogelio G. Jundarino, A.M. No. P-09-2644 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2787-P), July 30, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J., writing for the Court.
Complainant Edgardo A. Quilo filed an administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct, Oppression, Coercion and Harassment against respondent Rogelio G. Jundarino, Sheriff III of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 19, Manila, arising from events in the implementation of a writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 158273-CV (an ejectment action filed by Teodula Bajao against Eduardo Saclag, et al.).
The MeTC rendered judgment for Bajao on November 20, 1998; the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, affirmed with modification on September 13, 1999; the Court of Appeals denied Saclag, et al.'s appeal as filed out of time (Resolution, November 26, 1999); and this Court denied the petition for review in G.R. No. 142592 (Resolution, June 14, 2000), which became final and executory on July 28, 2000. Pursuant to these final processes, a Writ of Execution was issued by MeTC Presiding Judge Felicitas O. Laron-Cacanindin on November 28, 2007, ordering surrender of possession, demolition of structures on the parcel, attorney's fees and costs.
Quilo alleges that Sheriff Jundarino (with other court personnel and the plaintiff) visited his residence on February 12, 2008 and March 27, 2008 to serve a Notice to Pay/Vacate and Demolish Premises and to implement the writ. Quilo claimed that on February 12 the sheriff left the notice at his doorstep and shouted a menacing statement to the effect that Quilo would be the first to be demolished if he resisted; that on March 27 the sheriff entered the premises (accompanied by Bajao and demolition personnel), threatened confiscation of household goods, and coerced Quilo’s wife into signing a document granting an extension to voluntarily vacate by April 10, 2008; Quilo also avers these acts caused anxiety and sleeplessness. Quilo and a neighbor filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution and Recall of the Notice (filed March 5, 2008) set for hearing on March 28, 2008, and Quilo submitted an affidavit to the MeTC in support.
Quilo filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on April 9, 2008 (docketed A.M. No. MTJ-08-2787). The OCA required Sheriff Jundarino to comment. In his Comment the sheriff denied the February 12 visit, admitted being at the premises on March 27 but denied forcible entry, coercion or the alleged threatening statements, and asserted Quilo had connections to the defendants in the ejectment case. Quilo filed a Reply reiterating his allegations. The OCA submitted a report (April 14, 2009) recommending re-docketing as a regular administrative matter and finding Sheriff Jundarino guilty of simple misconduct with a fine equivalent to three months’ salary. The Court re-docketed the matter as a regular administrative case on June 29, 2009.
While A.M. No. P-09-2644 was pending, Quilo had filed a separate administrative complaint (A.M. No. MTJ-08-2078) against Judge Cacanindin and Sheriff Jundarino which this Court dismissed by Resolution dated February 16, 2009 as judicial in nature. The Court therefore first considered whether res judicata or the prior dismissal barred the present administrative action. The Court concluded there was no res judicata because the causes of action differed: the dismissed complaint challenged judicial rulings and subsequent demolition (judicial questions), while the present complaint concerned the sheriff’s alleged misconduct in the manner and demeanor of serving the writ and carrying out execution (administrative).
After reviewing the evidence and authorities, the Court found Sheriff Jundarino guilty of simple misconduct for his rude, menacing language and for insisting on implementing the writ on March 27, 2008 despite Quilo’s pending Motion to Quash scheduled for March 28, 2008, and for failing to substantiate his denials with evidence. Considering this was the sheriff’s first administrative infraction in sixteen years of service, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to three months’ salary rather than suspension. The Court’s decision was rendered in a decision dated July 30, 2009.
Issues:
- Does the doctrine of res judicata bar the Court from entertaining A.M. No. P-09-2644?
- Is Quilo’s present complaint against Sheriff Jundarino judicial in nature and therefore not proper as an administrative complaint?
- Was Sheriff Jundarino guilty of simple misconduct in the manner he served the writ of execution and interacted with Quilo and residents?
- What penalty is appropriate for the offense determined?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)