Case Summary (G.R. No. 246343)
Background Facts and Procedural Posture
The MTCC ruled against Rafols in the unlawful detainer case, ordering him to vacate the premises and pay rentals and attorney’s fees. Rafols, through Alconera, appealed to the RTC Branch 36, but pending appeal, the RTC granted a writ of execution favoring the plaintiffs (Cua Beng and co.). The motion for reconsideration of the issuance of the writ was denied. On March 17, 2011, the sheriff, Pallanan, with the opposing counsel and men, sought to enforce the writ. Despite a pending motion for reconsideration alleged by Alconera and no receipt of a denial copy, Pallanan proceeded with the enforcement. The complainant confronted Pallanan on March 18, 2011, leading to a heated and videotaped altercation involving rude and disrespectful exchanges.
Administrative Complaint and Counterclaims
Alconera filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct and making untruthful statements against Pallanan. The respondent sheriff filed a counter-affidavit charging Alconera with grave misconduct and violation of the Code of Ethics, alleging threats and orchestrated hostility. The complaint was re-docketed as a regular administrative case, investigated by the RTC Executive Judge, who recommended admonition against the sheriff due to misconduct in demeanor, emphasizing the importance of patience and humility, especially in stressful situations.
Issue Presented
Whether respondent Sheriff Alfredo T. Pallanan is administratively liable for grave misconduct and making untruthful statements in connection with his enforcement of the writ of execution and his conduct during the ensuing confrontation with Attorney Alconera.
Standard for Grave Misconduct
Grave misconduct involves willful violation of law, rules or gross negligence coupled with improper intent. Substantial evidence is required to prove this administrative offense. The sheriff’s enforcement of a writ is ministerial, performed according to law and court orders, with no discretion to delay absent lawful orders like a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
Analysis on Enforcement of the Writ of Execution
Under Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, judgments in unlawful detainer cases are immediately executory unless the defendant perfects an appeal with a sufficient supersedeas bond and deposits the rental or reasonable compensation during the appeal. The complainant’s client failed to meet these conditions properly — the supersedeas bond was a property bond not owned by the appellant nor properly issued in favor of the plaintiff; thus, the stay of execution was not validly obtained.
The sheriff’s duty to execute the writ, therefore, was ministerial and mandatory, provided no TRO or other order restrained enforcement. The alleged failure to serve the complainant with the order denying the motion for reconsideration before execution does not prevent enforcement where the law mandates immediate execution, absent compliance with stay requirements. No evidence showed any proper filing of a motion to quash the writ or issuance of a TRO.
Compliance with Execution Procedure
Rule 39, Section 10(c), mandates that the court officer shall demand peaceful vacation of the property with a three-working-day notice prior to forcible eviction. Whether the sheriff complied with this procedural requirement was not sufficiently disputed or proven by complainant. Thus, the sheriff is presumed to have performed his duties regularly.
Demeanor and Courtesy in Official Duties
Notwithstanding the correctness of the sheriff’s enforcement of the writ, the Court concurs with the investigating judge’s finding regarding the sheriff's discourtesy during the confrontation with complainant. Public officers, including court personnel, must exercise patience, courtesy, and respect even under provocation, as they embody the judiciary’s integrity and reputation. The exchange between the sheriff and the complainant was marked by r
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 246343)
Background and Parties
- Complainant Atty. Virgilio P. Alconera represented Morito Rafols in Civil Case No. 5967-2, an unlawful detainer case filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, General Santos City.
- After judgment was rendered against Rafols on March 12, 2009, ordering eviction and payment of rentals and attorney’s fees, an appeal was filed with the RTC, Branch 36, docketed as Civil Case No. 675.
- Pending appeal, respondent Sheriff Alfredo T. Pallanan was tasked with enforcing a writ of execution issued on February 18, 2011, ordering eviction of Rafols.
- Complaint arose when Sheriff Pallanan proceeded with execution despite complainant’s pending motion for reconsideration, and due to alleged disrespectful conduct during enforcement and confrontation with Alconera.
Facts and Incident Leading to Complaint
- On March 17, 2011, Evelyn Rafols, leading to communication between Alconera and respondent, informed about impending enforcement by Sheriff Pallanan with the opposing counsel and 30 men.
- Respondent demanded P720,000 allegedly as total due from Rafols, which was protested by the latter as excessive since monthly rentals had been deposited with the court.
- A verbal altercation ensued over the phone where the Sheriff stated that no TRO had been issued to enjoin the writ and that he was duty-bound to enforce it.
- On March 18, 2011, Alconera confronted the sheriff at his office in General Santos City, where a heated and hostile argument was recorded, containing exchanges regarding jurisdiction, procedural matters, and challenges to each other’s professionalism.
Administrative Proceedings and Counter-Complaints
- Alconera filed a complaint for grave misconduct against Sheriff Pallanan before the Supreme Court on April 6, 2011, docketed as AM No. 11-3634-P.
- Respondent filed a comment emphasizing his ministerial duty to enforce the writ absent a TRO.
- Respondent Pallanan filed a counter-affidavit alleging grave misconduct and violation of the Code of Ethics by Alconera, claiming threats and orchestration of the confrontation.
- Complainant supplemented his affidavit to include charges of false testimony against Sheriff Pallanan.
- The case was re-docketed as a regular administrative case, A.M. No. P-12-3069, and referred to the Executive Judge of the RTC, General Santos City, for investigation and report.
Issues Presented
- Whether the sheriff committed grave misconduct by executing the writ prior to proper service of denial of motion for reconsideration.
- Whether the respondent made untruthful statements during administrative proceedings.
- Whether respondent’s conduct during the confrontation warranted disciplinary sanctions.
- The propriety of the enforcement of the writ of