Curry v. Tallud

FIRST DIVISION

[OCA IPI No. 17-4775-P. July 10, 2019.]

ROBERT CURRY, REPRESENTED BY ANGEL T. MADRIGAL, complainant, vs.ATTY. GREGORIO C. TALLUD, CLERK OF COURT VII, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 10, 2019which reads as follows:

"OCA IPI No. 17-4775-P (Robert Curry, represented by Angel T. Madrigal v. Atty. Gregorio C. Tallud, Clerk of Court VII, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City) — The complaint dated December 11, 2017 (with enclosures) of Robert Curry, represented by Angel T. Madrigal, charging Clerk of Court VII Gregorio C. Tallud with gross ignorance of the law relative to Civil Case No. 14-07687, entitled "Robert A. Curry vs. Lancelot E. Curry"; the comment dated February 21, 2018 of Clerk of Court VII Gregorio C. Tallud on the complaint; and the Report dated April 8, 2019 of the Office of the Court Administrator, are all NOTED.

In an Administrative Complaint, 1 dated December 11, 2017, Robert A. Curry (complainant) charged Atty. Gregorio C. Tallud (respondent), Clerk of Court VII and Ex-Officio Sheriff, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City (OCC-RTC), with ignorance of the law relative to an ejectment case docketed as Civil Case No. 14-07687, entitled Robert A. Curry v. Lancelot E. Curry. HTcADC

Complainant filed the ejectment case before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City (MeTC). The MeTC rendered the February 15, 2015 Decision 2 in his favor and ordered Lancelot E. Curry (Lancelot) to vacate the lot and pay complainant P5,000.00 monthly rentals from the filing of the complaint until he vacates the property. The case was then elevated to the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

In its October 7, 2016 Decision, 3 the RTC affirmed the MeTC in toto. Lancelot filed a motion for reconsideration. However, he failed to post a supersedeas bond and to deposit the monthly rentals in a timely manner, allowing complainant to move for the immediate execution of the judgment.

In its January 24, 2017 Order, 4 the RTC denied Lancelot's motion for reconsideration and issued a writ of execution in favor of complainant. Sheriff Cecilia S. Bañez implemented the writ, resulting in Lancelot's eviction.

Later, complainant's motion to withdraw the supersedeas bond and monthly deposits was granted by the RTC in its September 8, 2017 Order. 5 However, when he sought the implementation of the subject order with the OCC-RTC, respondent denied his request. Respondent Clerk of Court kept telling him that it is the court's policy that there must be an Entry of Judgment or Certificate of Finality before it could release any amount from the fiduciary account of the court.

Complainant averred that the reason for denial was whimsical and baseless. Respondent's defiance of the legal order of the court exceeded his authority amounting to abuse of discretion. Complainant prayed that defendant should explain his baseless refusal and be sanctioned if such action constitutes ignorance of the law.

In his Comment, 6 respondent alleged that he could not recall meeting complainant or his representative or coming across his claim for the withdrawal of the supersedeas bond and rental deposits in connection with the ejectment case. The documents for the withdrawal of the supersedeas bond and rental deposits might have been submitted to a member of the Cashier Section staff.

Respondent added that he never exceeded his authority amounting to abuse of discretion when he or the personnel of the Cashier Section of the OCC-RTC required the submission of the Certificate of Finality and/or Entry of Judgment. He argued that it has been a policy, not only of the OCC-RTC, but also of the Executive Judge that before the release of any amount from the fiduciary account of the court, the decision or order must have first attained finality. The purpose of which is to safeguard the funds of the judiciary from unauthorized withdrawals. He asserted that he never refused to comply with the subject order. CAIHTE

Further, respondent said that it was complainant who refused to submit the required Certificate of Finality for the processing of his claim. Had he submitted the required document, the withdrawal of the funds would have taken a mere five (5) business days to process. The amount being claimed is still intact in the fiduciary account of the court and could be withdrawn by him after the submission of such document. He argued that he could not possibly be charged with ignorance of the law as he had no judicial power as a clerk of court. 7

In its Report dated April 8, 2019, 8 the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit. The OCA found that complainant failed not only to discharge his burden to prove by substantial evidence how respondent is ignorant of the law, but also to present any evidence at all other than his gratuitous allegations. On the other hand, the OCA found respondent's explanation to be reasonable.

THE COURT'S RULING

After a careful review of the records and evidence presented by the parties, the Court finds the conclusions of fact and the recommendation of the OCA well taken and fully supported by the evidence on record.

In administrative cases, the standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant. 9 Further, complainant has the burden to prove his allegations by substantial evidence, or by such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise. 10

Here, the only thing offered by complainant in support of his allegations is his testimony. Not a single piece of relevant evidence was presented. As aptly pointed out by the OCA: 11

Complainant merely alleged that respondent Clerk of Court's refusal to comply with the Order of 08 September 2017 was whimsical and baseless and was an abuse of discretion, but no documentary/testimonial evidence was adduced. Without proof as to their truthfulness or veracity, the allegations in the complaint remain mere allegations and do not rise to the dignity of the proof. On the other hand, this Office finds the explanation proffered by respondent Clerk of Court to be reasonable. aScITE

Relative thereto, it has been uniformly held that if the complainant upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim, the respondent is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail.

In Sy v. Esponilla, it was held that "[t]his Court has always been punctilious over and over again that it will never tolerate or condone any conduct, act or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability or diminish the people's faith in the judiciary. However, when administrative charges against court personnel hold no basis whatsoever in fact or in law, this Court will not hesitate to protect the innocent court employees against any groundless accusation that trifles with judicial process."

Considering that there is nothing administratively sanctionable in the instant administrative case because complainant failed to present credible evidence to validate his allegations, there is a need for this Court to protect respondent in this particular instance. (citations omitted)

Basic is the rule that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. 12 Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence. Hence, when the complainant relies on mere conjectures and suppositions, and fails to substantiate his allegations, as in this case, the administrative complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit. 13

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Atty. Gregorio C. Tallud is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. DETACa

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-5.

2.Id. at 9-15; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Lyn Ebora Cacha.

3.Id. at 16-22; penned by Presiding Judge Primo G. Sio, Jr.

4.Id. at 23-24.

5.Id. at 26-28.

6.Id. at 30-32.

7.Id. at 32.

8.Id. at 38-41; prepared by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and Assistant Court Administrator Lilian C. Barribal-Co.

9.Hon. Marcelo v. Bungubung, et al., 575 Phil. 538, 557 (2008).

10. See Bughaw, Jr. v. Treasure Island Industrial Corporation, 573 Phil. 435, 442 (2008).

11.Rollo, pp. 40-41.

12.Real v. Belo, 542 Phil. 109, 122 (2007).

13.Dr. De Jesus v. Guerrero III, et al., 614 Phil. 520, 529 (2009).