A.M. No. P-09-2644 - Quilo vs. Jundarino

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-09-2644)

Factual Background: The Ejectment Judgment and the Writ of Execution

In Civil Case No. 158273-CV, the MeTC rendered a decision on 20 November 1998 ordering the defendants and all persons claiming under them to vacate and surrender possession peacefully to Bajao, demolish structures built on the property, pay attorney’s fees of P20,000.00, and bear the costs of suit. The RTC, in its Decision dated 13 September 1999, affirmed the MeTC decision with modification to restate the specific directive: vacation of the premises located at 2519 Granate St., Sta. Ana, Manila, demolition of structures, payment of P20,000.00 for attorney’s fees, and payment of costs, while denying the defendants’ counterclaim.

The defendants’ subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed as untimely by a Resolution dated 26 November 1999. Their attempt at reconsideration was likewise denied by Resolution dated 13 July 1998. An additional appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed in a Resolution dated 14 June 2000 for failure to show any reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals. The 14 June 2000 resolution became final and executory on 28 July 2000, and it was entered in the Book of Entries of Judgments.

Upon Bajao’s motion, the MeTC issued a Writ of Execution on 28 November 2007 through MeTC Judge Felicitas O. Laron-Cacanindin. The writ commanded the MeTC sheriff to effect the immediate surrender of physical possession of the premises at 2519 Granate St., Sta. Ana, Manila to Bajao, demolish structures built on the parcel, pay the P20,000.00 attorney’s fees, and render execution with lawful fees and costs.

Allegations in the Administrative Complaint

Quilo alleged that Sheriff Jundarino’s implementation of the writ crossed into Quilo’s home life and involved acts he characterized as Grave Misconduct, Oppression, Coercion, and Harassment. He claimed that on 12 February 2008 between 10:00 and 11:00 in the morning, Sheriff Jundarino, together with another MeTC sheriff who did not introduce himself, went to Quilo’s residence at 2518 Granate St., San Andres Bukid, Manila, bringing a Notice to Pay/Vacate and Demolish Premises bearing Sheriff Jundarino’s signature and allegedly attached to a writ signed by Judge Cacanindin. Quilo maintained he refused to accept the notice because he claimed he had no knowledge of any case and the notice was not properly addressed to him.

Quilo further alleged that Sheriff Jundarino nevertheless left the notice in front of Quilo’s house and issued menacing remarks, warning that Quilo would be the first to be made to work and that the demolition would proceed if they returned stubbornly. According to Quilo, this incident caused serious anxiety and sleepless nights for him and his wife and prompted them to seek legal assistance.

Quilo then alleged that on 5 March 2008, while Quilo was in Davao on 27 March 2008, Sheriff Jundarino again visited the premises between 2:00 and 2:30 p.m., this time accompanied by the person introducing herself as Bajao and by two relatives, together with approximately fifteen men carrying demolition tools, and another man who appeared to be an attorney but who allegedly did not identify himself. Quilo’s narrative stated that Sheriff Jundarino forcibly entered the house and instructed Quilo’s wife to begin demolition and to remove property inside because Sheriff Jundarino purportedly would demolish that day. Quilo claimed Sheriff Jundarino threatened confiscation of items such as a TV set and a refrigerator, and stated that only a temporary restraining order could stop the demolition or that they would instead sign a paper signifying voluntary departure and demolition.

Quilo alleged that his wife wrote an undertaking requesting an extension until 10 April 2008 to allow voluntary demolition and that she signed this document against her will. Quilo added that the sheriff took the signed document without giving copies. Quilo asserted that he submitted a sworn affidavit in support of his earlier claims. In sum, Quilo treated Sheriff Jundarino’s conduct as violent and coercive in nature and as proceeding despite a pending Motion to Quash Writ of Execution and Recall of the Notice to Pay/Vacate and Demolish Premises scheduled for hearing the day after the March 2008 visit.

OCA and Pleadings: Respondent’s Denials and Explanations

The OCA required Sheriff Jundarino to comment within ten days. In his Comment, Sheriff Jundarino denied going to Quilo’s house on 12 February 2008, but he admitted that he went there on 27 March 2008, together with the MeTC process server and with Bajao and her relatives, solely to serve the Notice to Pay/Vacate and Demolish Premises. Sheriff Jundarino maintained that Quilo refused to accept the notice and denied the allegation that he and others forcibly entered the premises.

Sheriff Jundarino asserted that he entered only with prior permission and authority of the residents and that he behaved civilly. He also claimed that he advised the residents to consult a lawyer. According to him, the temporary suspension of execution occurred only due to the residents’ request/plea for an extension, which he accommodated once the residents expressed willingness to voluntarily vacate before 10 April 2008. He denied making the alleged abusive statements attributed to him on 12 February 2008 and denying that he told Quilo on 27 March 2008 that he was only given seventy-two hours to implement the order.

Sheriff Jundarino also argued that Quilo’s claimed fear was implausible if Quilo and his neighbor Ednaloy Villahermosa were in fact strangers to the ejectment case and lived at a different address than the property described in the judgment. He reasoned that if Quilo and Villahermosa were not proper subjects of execution, they would not have sought to quash the writ because such quashal would only delay execution. He further maintained that Quilo lied when Quilo said he had no knowledge of Civil Case No. 158273-CV. Sheriff Jundarino attempted to show that Quilo’s claim of non-involvement contradicted Quilo’s own affidavit executed on 8 April 2008. Sheriff Jundarino pointed out that Quilo admitted he was renting the premises from Domeriano Gealogo, allegedly related to Cristina F. Gealogo, who was said to be the sister of Talia Saclag. He also claimed that Cristina received the summons for the ejectment suit, enabling Talia Saclag to file her Answer.

Sheriff Jundarino requested dismissal of the administrative complaint as false, baseless, fabricated, and aimed solely at preventing lawful execution.

In his Reply, Quilo insisted that Sheriff Jundarino did visit his house on 12 February 2008 and that the events were terrifying, with persistent anxiety and sleepless nights caused by the threat of demolition. Quilo further posited that the actions taken on 27 March 2008 were intended to render Quilo’s pending Motion to Quash moot by compelling Quilo’s wife to sign an agreement to voluntarily vacate.

Threshold Issue: Res Judicata with Respect to a Prior Administrative Dismissal

The Court addressed a procedural bar before ruling on A.M. No. P-09-2644, given that a previous administrative complaint by Quilo against Judge Cacanindin and Sheriff Jundarino had been filed and dismissed as judicial in nature in A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2078-MTJ by Resolution dated 16 February 2009. The Court held that it must determine that the present complaint was not barred by res judicata.

The Court reiterated the doctrine of res judicata, emphasizing that a matter once judicially decided becomes final as to the rights of the parties and the entire subject of controversy. It recalled that res judicata requires a former final judgment on the merits rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, and identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.

The Court found no res judicata because there was no identity of causes of action between A.M. No. P-09-2644 and A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2078-MTJ. The Court explained that while paragraphs in Quilo’s complaint in the new case substantially overlapped with his earlier complaint, there were two essential differences: first, A.M. No. P-09-2644 provided additional detail about Sheriff Jundarino’s purported visits on 12 February 2008 and 27 March 2008, including statements and conduct; and second, the present complaint ended with Quilo’s allegation that after the March 2008 visit he filed an affidavit before the MeTC. By contrast, the earlier complaint in A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2078-MTJ included subsequent events after the March 2008 visit, such as Judge Cacanindin’s denial of the motions, service of a second notice, the filing of a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the RTC, and the demolition that followed.

The Court thus characterized the complaints as based on different causes of action: the present one assailed the sheriff’s abrasive words and actions during his alleged visits, while the earlier one attributed gross ignorance of the law to the judge for refusing to quash and persistence by the sheriff in implementing the writ in disregard of the pending petition.

The Court’s Treatment of the Administrative Nature of the Present Complaint

The Court recognized that administrative complaints must not be used as substitutes for judicial remedies where the core issues are judicial in nature. In the earlier dismissed case, the Court had characterized the determination of whether Quilo’s residence was the same property subject of Civil Case No. 158273-CV, and whether it should be demolished pursuant to the judgment, as a matter best left to trial court determination in proper judicial proceedings, and thus dismissed it as judicial in nature.

In the present administrative case, however, the Court held that the issue of whether Sheriff Jundarino exercised proper decorum and followed established procedure while serving the writ and notice on 12 February 2008 and 27 March 2008 was an administrative matter within the Cour

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-09-2644)

The case involved an administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct, Oppression, Coercion, and Harassment filed by Edgardo A. Quilo against Rogelio G. Jundarino, Sheriff III of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 19.
The Court ultimately found Sheriff Jundarino liable for simple misconduct and imposed a fine equivalent to three (3) months’ salary, with a warning of more severe action upon repetition.

Underlying ejectment and appeals

Teodula Bajao filed an Unlawful Detainer case before the MeTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 158273-CV, against Eduardo Saclag, Zoilo Fulong, Alena Bertos, and Talia Saclag.
On 20 November 1998, the MeTC rendered a decision ordering the defendants to vacate and surrender possession to Bajao, demolish structures, pay attorney’s fees of P20,000.00, and pay costs.
The defendants appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 19, which affirmed with modification in a decision dated 13 September 1999.
The defendants’ subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied in a resolution dated 26 November 1999 for having been filed out of time.
Their motion for reconsideration was similarly denied in a resolution dated 13 July 1998.
The defendants filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 142592, but the Supreme Court denied the appeal in a resolution dated 14 June 2000 for failure to show reversible error.
The 14 June 2000 resolution became final and executory on 28 July 2000 and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments.

Issuance and content of writ

After finality, Bajao moved for execution, and a Writ of Execution was issued by MeTC Judge Felicitas O. Laron-Cacanindin on 28 November 2007.
The writ directed the sheriff to: cause the immediate surrender of the premises at 2519 Granate St., Sta. Ana, Manila to Bajao; demolish all structures on the parcel; pay P20,000.00 for attorney’s fees; and include costs and lawful sheriff’s fees.

Events triggering the complaint

The Court found that the sheriff’s implementation of the writ intersected with Quilo’s situation.
On 9 April 2008, Quilo filed an administrative complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-08-2787, later re-docketed in this case as A.M. No. P-09-2644.
Quilo alleged two key encounters tied to the writ’s implementation: one on 12 February 2008 and another on 27 March 2008.
Quilo alleged that on 12 February 2008, Sheriff Jundarino, accompanied by another sheriff, attempted to tender a Notice To Pay/Vacate and Demolish Premises to him at 2518 Granate St., San Andres Bukid, Manila, and that the notice bore a writ with the signature of MeTC Presiding Judge Felicitas O. Laron-Cacanindin.
Quilo alleged that because the notice was not addressed to him and because he had no knowledge of any case, he refused acceptance, but the sheriff left the notice at the front of the house and uttered a threat that he would be “the first one” to be worked on and that demolition would occur upon their resistance.
Quilo alleged that the second incident on 27 March 2008 involved the sheriff’s purported forced entry into Quilo’s home, this time accompanied by Teodula Bajao, relatives, and persons armed with demolition tools, with the sheriff allegedly ordering his wife to start demolishing.
Quilo alleged that the sheriff supposedly allowed only seventy-two (72) hours to implement demolition and that there was no Special Order of Demolition.
Quilo alleged that Sheriff Jundarino insisted on immediate execution despite Quilo’s pending Motion to Quash Writ of Execution and Recall of the Notice, set for hearing on 28 March 2008, and allegedly threatened confiscation of household appliances such as a TV set and refrigerator.
Quilo alleged that the sheriff allegedly coerced his wife into signing a document for voluntary vacating by 10 April 2008, and that she signed against her will.
Quilo alleged that the sheriff allegedly withheld copies of the document, claiming only he should keep it to prove the voluntary undertaking.
Quilo asserted that his affidavit was submitted to the MeTC Branch 19 to support the allegations and the earlier Motion to Quash.

Complaint objectives and OCA action

Quilo requested an investigation of the incidents of 12 February 2008 and 27 March 2008, and he asked that Sheriff Jundarino be meted an appropriate administrative penalty.
The OCA required the sheriff to submit a comment within ten (10) days.
The OCA later submitted a report recommending that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that Sheriff Jundarino be found guilty only of simple misconduct with a fine equivalent to three (3) months’ salary and a stern warning.
The Court ordered on 29 June 2009 that the administrative case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter.

Res judicata issue raised

Before addressing the merits, the Court evaluated whether the present complaint was barred by res judicata because of a prior Court action in another case.
The Court noted that during pendency of the present matter, it had dismissed another administrative complaint filed by Quilo against Judge Cacanindin and Sheriff Jundarino, docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-08-2078, in a resolution dated 16 February 2009.
The Court applied the general doctrine that res judicata requires, among others: a final judgment on the merits, jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, and identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.
The Court held there was no res judicata because there was no identity of causes of action between the present complaint and the prior A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2078-MTJ.
The Court characterized the first administrative complaint as