Title
Begay vs. Saguyod
Case
A.M. No. P-17-3652
Decision Date
Jun 23, 2020
Atty. Saguyod dismissed for misconduct after exceeding authority in writ of possession implementation; Sheriff Clemente cleared of allegations.
simple misconduct
ownership dispute
memorial park
A

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-17-3652)

Initiation of the Administrative Complaint and Material Events

Begay filed an Affidavit-Complaint alleging gross misconduct, discourteous acts, manifest partiality, and grave abuse of authority against Saguyod and Clemente. He alleged that, although he had sought nullification of real estate mortgages, promissory notes, foreclosure proceedings, transfer certificates of title, damages, and the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction pendente lite commanding the Rural Bank to desist from obtaining possession, the Rural Bank filed an ex parte motion on December 2, 2014 for the issuance of a writ of possession, docketed as Land Case No. 041-14, claiming purchase through an extrajudicial foreclosure sale. Begay averred that the Rural Bank failed to disclose in its ex parte motion that he was in actual possession of the property in the concept of an owner and that Civil Case No. 008-13 was pending, contesting the circumstances under which the property had been transferred to the foreclosed buyer.

In an Order dated April 17, 2015, the trial court granted the ex parte motion and directed the Branch Clerk of Court to issue the writ of possession. On April 20, 2015, Atty. Saguyod issued the Writ of Possession, addressed to the court’s Deputy Sheriff, Clemente. Upon receipt, Clemente issued a notice to vacate addressed to Begay, who was not a party and was not mentioned in the writ proceedings, although the writ had been directed against former owner Bautista and all other persons in possession.

Begay then filed a Motion to Quash dated April 21, 2015, asserting that he was the real owner in actual possession and that his due process rights were violated because he was not made a party to the foreclosure proceedings and the ex parte motion. He also requested to be allowed to speak during the hearing scheduled on April 30, 2015, but Saguyod allegedly failed to include him in that hearing.

Trial Court Action on the Motion to Quash and Subsequent Recall of Orders

Notwithstanding the pendency of Begay’s motion to quash, a group led by respondents implemented the writ in May 2015, forcibly taking possession of a portion of the memorial park, particularly the lot covered by TCT No. 043-2014005232. Begay alleged that at the time of takeover, Clemente ordered security guard Rolando M. Tabilisima to vacate and ordered that he be disarmed. Begay further alleged that the security force used during implementation, allegedly arranged by Saguyod and Clemente, was unlicensed within the contemplation of Republic Act No. 5487, as amended, and that the agency had no record with the National Police Commission’s Supervisory Office for Security and Investigation Agencies.

Begay also raised concerns about the timing of the evidence reception and ex parte proceedings. He asserted that the trial court’s April 17, 2015 Order stated that after examining exhibits on March 19, 2015, the petition was submitted for resolution, yet he claimed it was impossible for Saguyod to have conducted an ex parte reception of evidence before that date, considering that the Rural Bank allegedly submitted its judicial affidavit only on April 6, 2015 and offered exhibits were allegedly received by the trial court only on April 8, 2015.

On June 9, 2015, the trial court granted Begay’s motion to quash and allowed him to take possession of the subject property covered by TCT No. 043-2014005232 until the case would be resolved with finality. The trial court later recalled and set aside the Order dated April 17, 2015, the Writ of Possession dated April 20, 2015, and the Notice to Vacate dated April 20, 2015.

OCA Recommendation and Court En Banc Procedural Disposition

In its Memorandum dated February 20, 2017, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that Saguyod be found guilty of simple misconduct and be dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits except for accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The OCA recommended dismissal of the administrative complaint against Sheriff Clemente for lack of merit.

The OCA concluded that Saguyod’s issuance and the writ’s implementation could not be treated as irregular insofar as the issuance of the writ was done in accordance with the trial court’s order and that Begay was already in possession of the property. Regarding the allegation about replacement of Begay’s security guard with an unlicensed agency, the OCA found the claim tenuous for lack of substantiation. However, the OCA found merit in Begay’s allegation that Saguyod actively participated in the implementation. The OCA reported substantial evidence that Saguyod was at the scene together with the representative and lawyers of the Rural Bank, and that Saguyod’s presence, even absent a specific overt act, demonstrated personal involvement. The OCA further held that Saguyod exceeded his mandate as Clerk of Court as ex officio Sheriff, citing Section D(3)(3.2), Chapter 4 of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, which limits the clerk’s writ-implementation function to cases where the branch sheriff is absent.

On March 21, 2017, the Court en banc issued a Resolution that dismissed the complaint against George P. Clemente, Sheriff IV, and re-docketed the complaint against Atty. Paulino I. Saguyod as a regular administrative complaint, designated A.M. No. P-17-3652 (Willy Fred U. Begay vs. Atty. Paulino I. Saguyod, Clerk of Court VI, RTC, Branch 67, Paniqui, Tarlac).

Issues and the Court’s Resolution

The Court found itself in accord with the OCA’s factual findings and its legal evaluation as to Saguyod’s administrative liability. The determinative issue revolved around whether Saguyod’s conduct in connection with the implementation of the writ exceeded the proper boundaries of a clerk’s authority as ex officio sheriff and, if so, what offense and penalty attached.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court anchored its assessment on Section D(3)(3.2)(3.2.2.1), Chapter 4 of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, which provides that the clerk’s function as ex officio sheriff to implement writs from the branches of the Court exists only in the absence of the branch sheriff. The Court noted that the April 17, 2015 Order granted the ex parte motion for a writ of possession and directed the Branch Clerk of Court to issue the writ. On April 20, 2015, however, the writ was addressed not to the clerk for implementation but to the court’s Deputy Sheriff, namely Clemente, who was already present during the implementation. For that reason, the Court held that the circumstances did not warrant Saguyod’s exercise of any ex officio sheriff implementation function.

The Court emphasized that the OCA reported photographs showing Saguyod’s presence at the subject property during implementation and showing him conferring with the officers and lawyers of the Rural Bank. Another photograph showed Saguyod angrily pointing his finger at Begay’s staff and apparently shouting invectives at them. Thus, the Court concluded that Saguyod’s act of overseeing enforcement in an intimidating manner demonstrated that he overstepped the bounds of propriety required of a court employee.

The Court gave scant consideration to Saguyod’s position that he merely reminded Deputy Sheriff Clemente to delineate the property and that he did not participate in the actual implementation. The Court cited its settled rule that a bare denial could not prevail over a complainant’s clear and categorical assertion when the record showed substantial evidence. It further held that Saguyod’s mere presence and intimidation at the implementation site was highly questionable, particularly because Clemente was already present. The Court stressed that court personnel are expected to uphold the highest degree of standards and to avoid conduct that can taint public confidence in the Judiciary. It therefore treated Saguyod’s actuations as an act of simple misconduct.

The Court explained the distinction between grave and simple misconduct. It held that misconduct becomes grave when elements such as corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules are present; otherwise, the misconduct is simple. Since the record showed no corruption, no clear intent to violate the law, and no flagrant disregard of established rules, the Court classified Saguyod’s conduct as simple misconduct.

Doctrine on Penalty and Disposition

On penalty, the Court referred to Boston Finance and Investment Corp. v. Gonzalez, discussing that discipline of court personnel falls within the Supreme Court’s exclusive authority under Article VIII, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution. Since Saguyod was a clerk of court, the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (CCCP), incorporating the RRACCS, governed the discipline of court personnel who were not justices or judges. The Court app

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms