A.M. No. P-09-2668 - Astorga and Repol Law Offices vs. Villanueva

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-09-2668)

Petitioner

Astorga and Repol Law Offices filed an administrative complaint alleging that Sheriff Villanueva demanded money (initially P8,000, later lowered to P5,000) to execute a writ of execution and to serve notices of garnishment, and that he willfully neglected his duty by refusing or evading execution absent the payment of such sums.

Respondent

Sheriff Alexander D. Villanueva denied extortion and willful neglect. He contended the writ had been previously served and returned unsatisfied due to third-party claims; he maintained his communications were consultative or courteous, that any references to "legal fees" or "colors" referred to lawful fees collectible through the Clerk of Court, and that he did not receive any payment or otherwise extort money.

Key Dates

Trial court Decision in favor of FGU Insurance Corporation: August 23, 2004 (RTC Branch 66).
Writ of Execution issued: July 10, 2006.
Sheriff assignment and related communications: October–November 2008 (meetings and text messages between Atty. Lugares and Sheriff Villanueva, with specific exchanges on November 24 and 26, 2008).
Administrative proceedings culminated in Supreme Court Resolution: February 24, 2015.

Applicable Law and Standards

Because the decision date is after 1990, the 1987 Constitution governs the decision. The court applied the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (Canon I, Sections 1–2; Canon IV, Sections 1 and 6), Rule 39 (Rules of Court) on execution (including Sections 6 and 14), and Rule 141, Section 10 (sheriff’s expenses and procedure for deposits and liquidation). The applicable evidentiary standard in administrative proceedings is substantial evidence; findings of investigating judges are accorded weight but may be reviewed where record evidence was misunderstood or overlooked.

Factual Background

FGU Insurance obtained a money judgment against NEC Cargo Services, Inc.; the writ of execution was issued and, after prior partial levies and return unsatisfied due to a third-party claim, a new execution assignment occurred in October–November 2008. Atty. Lugares coordinated with Sheriff Villanueva to serve notices of garnishment on NEC’s shareholders to collect unpaid subscriptions. A series of text messages from the Sheriff to Atty. Lugares and meetings allegedly occurred; Atty. Lugares produced photographs of received text messages and a calling card matching the sender’s number. Atty. Lugares alleged that during a meeting on November 24, 2008, the Sheriff demanded money to effectuate the execution.

Procedural History

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) re-docketed the complaint as a regular administrative matter and referred it for local investigation. Executive Judge Cornejo and later Judge Salvador conducted inquiries; Judge Salvador initially recommended dismissal for lack of evidence due to complainant’s alleged desistance. The OCA likewise recommended dismissal and show-cause against Atty. Lugares for filing an unfounded complaint. The Supreme Court initially dismissed then recalled that dismissal and ordered a reopened investigation under Executive Judge Benjamin T. Pozon. Executive Judge Pozon recommended dismissal for lack of evidence. On review, the Supreme Court reversed Pozon’s recommendation and found the Sheriff administratively liable.

Evidence Presented

Primary evidence included: the text messages received by Atty. Lugares (photographs of his phone screen), a calling card showing the sender’s number corresponding to the messages, correspondence and writ-related returns, affidavits (including that of Atty. Engracio M. Escasiñas, Jr.), and testimony regarding meetings and subsequent service by a Special Sheriff (Fermin de Castro) of notices of garnishment. Atty. Lugares’ outgoing text messages were not produced due to automatic deletion from his phone; the Court accepted the incoming texts, supporting the allegations.

Investigative Findings and Earlier Recommendations

Executive Judge Pozon concluded that Atty. Lugares failed to substantiate the allegations because his outgoing texts were not presented; he treated the Sheriff’s messages as ambiguous and accepted the Sheriff’s denials and supporting affidavits. Earlier investigators (Judge Salvador and the OCA) had recommended dismissal for lack of evidence, but the Supreme Court reopened review on complainant’s motion and further proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Standard of Review

The Court recognized the general deference given to findings of investigating judges but noted exceptions where a record shows overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated facts that would alter the result. The Court applied the substantial evidence standard appropriate to administrative cases: guilt may be sustained when a reasonable mind could accept the record as adequate to support the conclusion.

Court’s Analysis — Willful Neglect of Duty

The Court found substantial evidence that Sheriff Villanueva manifestly refused or evaded his duty to execute the writ with reasonable celerity. The incoming text messages, the chronology showing eventual successful service by a Special Sheriff, and the Sheriff’s inconsistent denials established that the Sheriff failed to undertake necessary steps to implement the writ in good faith. The Court held this conduct violated Canon IV, Sections 1 and 6 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and the ministerial duty of sheriffs under Rule 39 to proceed promptly in execution.

Court’s Analysis — Extortion and Corruption

On the extortion allegation, the Court concluded that the text messages and meeting testimony demonstrated the Sheriff sought a monetary concession (the so-called "legal fees" or "colors") as a condition for executing the writ. The Court rejected the notion that the term "colors" or the references to "legal fees" had any lawful basis under the Rules of Court or relevant issuances; the Sheriff failed to prove that any proper deposit-and-liquidation procedure (Rule 141, Section

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-09-2668)

Parties and Nature of the Case

Complainant: Astorga and Repol Law Offices, a professional law practice partnership, represented by Atty. Arnold B. Lugares.
Respondent: Alexander D. Villanueva, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Makati City.
Cause: Administrative complaint alleging willful neglect of duty and serious misconduct due to graft and corruption or extortion; prayer for dismissal or other sanctions.
Case citation: 754 Phil. 534; docketed as A.M. No. P-09-2668; resolution dated February 24, 2015; En Banc disposition.

Underlying Civil Proceeding and Judgment Subject to Execution

Complainant Astorga and Repol Law Offices represented FGU Insurance Corporation in Civil Case No. 01-1002 against NEC Cargo Services, Inc.
On August 23, 2004, Judge Ricardo R. Rosario (Branch 66, RTC Makati) rendered judgment in favor of FGU Insurance Corporation, awarding P1,942,285.19 with legal interest from June 21, 2001, attorney’s fees of P70,000.00, and costs.
NEC Cargo Services, Inc. and third-party defendant-appellant Albert Tamayo appealed; the Court of Appeals denied the appeal by resolutions dated July 20, 2005 and December 20, 2005, which became final and executory.

Issuance and Assignment of Writ of Execution; Initial Execution Efforts

Writ of Execution dated July 10, 2006, issued by Branch 66 Clerk of Court Atty. Marjorie M. de Castro.
Prior writ originally assigned to Sheriff Leodel N. Roxas; served on NEC Cargo Services, Inc.; levied personal properties/office equipment.
Prior to scheduled auction sale on July 19, 2006, Narciso E. Calaton filed affidavit of third-party claim; FGU Insurance Corporation failed to post indemnity bond in favor of third-party claimant; writ returned unsatisfied.
On October 21, 2008, Sheriff Villanueva was ordered to implement the Writ of Execution. Sheriff’s Return dated November 5, 2008 was returned unsatisfied because only properties found were shares of stocks registered with SEC (Stocks Cert. Reg. No. A199703734), which the Sheriff considered not subject to levy.

Coordination between Atty. Lugares and Sheriff Villanueva

After appointment as Special Sheriff on September 19, 2008, Sheriff Villanueva was assigned to execute the Decision; coordination with Atty. Lugares began on October 29, 2008.
Parties agreed to meet on November 24, 2008, purportedly to discuss service of Notices of Garnishment.
Chronology of communications and meeting events:
- November 24, 2008, 8:54 a.m.: Sheriff Villanueva allegedly sent text message to Atty. Lugares: "Nagcoffee break lang sir, antay nio lng muna ako dyan sir, gd. day."
- Around 10:00 a.m. on November 24, 2008: Atty. Lugares met Sheriff Villanueva on the 10th floor of Makati City Hall.
- November 24 meeting: Atty. Lugares alleged Sheriff Villanueva demanded P8,000.00 to execute the Decision and said: "[S]ayang lang ang pagod ko dito, kung wala naman tayong makokolekta" and "E wala pang 50% ang magagarnish natin diyan eh."
- Atty. Lugares informed the Sheriff that demand was improper; Sheriff allegedly lowered amount to P5,000.00 and they agreed to meet on November 26, 2008 at 8:00 a.m. to serve Notices of Garnishment.
- November 25, 2008, 4:27 p.m.: Sheriff Villanueva allegedly sent text message: "Cge po sir magCALL na kau ngayon."
- Morning November 26, 2008: Atty. Lugares sent reminder text; exchanges included:
  - 7:23 a.m. reply: "Dala mo ba mga colors?"
  - 7:29 a.m. reply: "Hauz pa po, nagcoffee breakfast lng, un legal fees kako kung dala mo ?"
  - 7:44 a.m. reply: "Bka puede bukas nlng sir, nag insist ang mga tga ChinaTrust mamya."
  - 8:45 a.m. reply: "Patawagin mo nga c atty. astorga dto sa mobil phone ko para magconfirm tau sa legal fees."
  - 8:51 a.m. text allegedly from Sheriff: "Padala mo nlng khit lunch time un legal fees, khit kmi na bhala magpaserve nina shf. Flora."
- Atty. Lugares assumed Notices of Garnishment were not issued because he did not give the P5,000.00 demanded.

Complainant’s Allegations and Evidence

Atty. Lugares alleged extortion and neglect: Sheriff demanded money to execute the writ and refused to implement the writ absent payment.
Evidence presented by Atty. Lugares:
- Photographs of the screen of his cellular phone showing incoming text messages from respondent as received.
- Respondent’s calling card linking the same phone number to respondent.
- Alleged in-person meeting on November 24, 2008 where demand for money was made and lowered from P8,000.00 to P5,000.00.
- Annexed Sheriff Fermin de Castro’s reports and subsequent action showing that a later Special Sheriff served the Notices of Garnishment (allegedly without incident).

Respondent’s Account and Defenses

Sheriff Villanueva’s counter-claims and denials:
- The Writ of Execution stemmed from the July 10, 2006 writ originally served by Sheriff Roxas; earlier efforts had led to returns unsatisfied due to third-party claims and lack of other levied properties.
- Sheriff consulted fellow deputies, Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff Atty. Engracio M. Escasiñas, Jr., and Judge Villarosa, and was allegedly advised not to garnish individual stock certificates because Rule 39, Section 9 of the Revised Rules of Court permits levy on debts and credits but not stock certificates.
- Denied attempting to extort; claimed any meeting would be out of courtesy and that Atty. Lugares offered money as a "token of gratitude."
- Alleged Atty. Lugares sought to garnish individual stock certificates (which he was advised against), and that Atty. Lugares never paid the required "legal fees" to the Clerk of Court’s Cashier Section.
- Asserted the "legal fees" he referred to were official payments (e.g., P100.00 per Notice of Garnishment plus 3.5% interest) payable to the Clerk of Court.
- Denied meeting with Atty. Lugares at times; in some proceedings denied making any demands; in others, failed to deny sending texts.

Office of the Court Administrator and Investigating Judges’ Proceedings

Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended re-docketing as administrative matter and referral to Executive Judge Maria Cristina J. Cornejo for investigation.
First Division approved OCA recommendations in Resolution dated July 29, 2009.
Executive Judge Cornejo began investigation; Judge Tranquil Salvador, Jr. later took over and recommended dismissal of complaint due to alleged desistance of Atty. Lugares to testify and lack of substantial evidence.
OCA, in Memorandum dated March 29, 2011, recommended dismissal for lack of evidence and requested that Atty. Lugares show cause why he should not be held in contempt for filing an unfounded complaint.
On June 22, 2011, the Court adopted OCA recommendations, dismissed the complaint, and r