THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-19-3966. July 8, 2019.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-4802-P]
GABRIEL C. GARLAN, complainant, vs.SHERIFF IV KEN P. SIGALES, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 8, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-19-3966 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-4802-P] (GABRIEL C. GARLAN, complainant v. SHERIFF IV KEN P. SIGALES, JR., respondent). — This administrative matter originated from a Complaint-Affidavit 1 filed by Gabriel C. Garlan (Garlan), charging Ken P. Sigales, Jr. (Sheriff IV Sigales), Sheriff IV of Branch 32, Regional Trial Court, Pili, Camarines Sur, with grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct. The Office of the Court Administrator found that the sheriff committed excesses in implementing a Writ of Preliminary Attachment 2 and caused damage to Garlan's property.
Garlan is the owner of Gabs Agri Supply and Buy and Sell, a company doing business at No. 289 Allah Valley Drive, Libertad, Surallah, South Cotobato. He was the defendant in a civil case in which it was held that he owed an obligation of P10,358,565.56 to Vast Agro Solutions, Inc. (Vast Agro). 3
In his Complaint-Affidavit, Garlan alleged that at around 10:00 a.m. on August 24, 2017, Sheriff IV Sigales, together with Vast Agro's counsel Atty. Restituto Mendoza (Atty. Mendoza) and sales agent Dennis Jacinto (Jacinto), went to his office to implement the Writ of Preliminary Attachment issued by the trial court. 4
Based on the writ, the group began retrieving the chemicals and fertilizers stored in Garlan's warehouse to be returned to its supplier, Vast Agro. At 12:40 p.m., Garlan left the warehouse for his business appointments in Sultan Kudarat and Davao City. 5
At around 4:35 p.m., while Garlan was on his way to his business appointments, his wife called to tell him about a group of eight (8) persons — among them Sheriff IV Sigales, Atty. Mendoza, and Jacinto, as later identified — who forcibly destroyed the lock of his steel gate and broke into his house. They took his Toyota Corolla, 10-wheeler truck drop side, 10-wheeler wingvan, along with his Ford Explorer pickup's computer box, as witnessed by his driver and two (2) housekeepers and recorded by the closed-circuit television camera installed in his house. 6
Garlan's wife later went to the Surallah Police Station and filed a blotter report of the incident. Meanwhile, Garlan secured a Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court, Surallah, South Cotabato, showing that Sheriff IV Sigales not only failed to make a proper inventory of Garlan's attached properties, but unlawfully took his vehicles as well. 7
Garlan also filed before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor a Complaint for robbery against Sheriff IV Sigales, Atty. Mendoza, and Jacinto. 8 The Provincial Prosecutor eventually found probable cause to file an information against them in his December 28, 2017 Resolution. 9
Subsequently, Garlan filed this Administrative Complaint against Sheriff IV Sigales, accusing him of acting with grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct as sheriff. 10
In his Comment, 11 Sheriff IV Sigales countered that the August 24, 2017 incident was a legitimate implementation of the Writ of Preliminary Attachment to collect Garlan's obligation to Vast Agro. 12
Sheriff IV Sigales asserted that he had repeatedly informed Garlan that if the recovered supplies were insufficient to satisfy the judgment award, his other properties would be seized. He contended that Garlan lied under oath when he filed his Criminal Complaint. 13
In his Report, 14 Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva (Deputy Court Administrator Villanueva) found the Administrative Complaint meritorious. Contrary to the typical result of an initial evaluation, where a case is referred to an executive judge for investigation, report, and recommendation — especially when there are conflicting claims — he opined that the facts in this case were apparent and did not warrant a referral. 15
Noting that substantial evidence is sufficient in resolving administrative cases, 16 Deputy Court Administrator Villanueva referred to the Provincial Prosecutor's Resolution on Garlan's Criminal Complaint, which Sheriff IV Sigales had attached to his Comment. 17 It read in part:
In fact, the CCTV video showed the gate was forced open without anyone (S[i]gales, Mendoza, Jacinto or any of the police officers who were with them) attempting to get someone from inside the gate to open it. The person who climbed over was captured on video picking up a tool and smashing the lock immediately thereafter.
It is clear the damages on the gate and Ford Explorer were made in the course of seizing the personal property (vehicles) of Garlan. The evidence, however, shows the same were not necessary as there was no circumstance that would justify acts that should be a last resort. All three respondents are liable. [Sheriff IV Sigales] as the court sheriff charged with the implementation of the writ, and Mendoza and Jacinto as the legal counsel and sales agent respectively of VAST Agro Solutions, Inc. whose interest is to ensure sufficient property belonging to Garlan are seized.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the undersigned finds probable cause against Sheriff Ken P S[i]gales, [Jr.], Atty. Restitulo S. Mendoza and Dennis Jacinto. Let the corresponding information for Malicious Mischief be filed in Court.
The complaint against them for Carnapping and Robbery with Use of Force upon Things are DISMISSED.
SO RESOLVED.18 (Emphasis in the original)
Adopting the Provincial Prosecutor's findings, Deputy Court Administrator Villanueva opined that the closed-circuit television footage corroborated the affidavits of Garlan's driver and two (2) housekeepers. He found that although not in grave abuse of authority, Sheriff IV Sigales was remiss in the performance of his duties as sheriff. 19
Accordingly, Deputy Court Administrator Villanueva recommended that this Complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter. He also recommended that Sheriff IV Sigales be found guilty of simple misconduct and be penalized with a fine amounting to his one (1)-month salary. 20
For this Court's resolution is the sole issue of whether or not respondent Sheriff IV Ken P. Sigales, Jr. is guilty of grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct, as accused by complainant Gabriel C. Garlan.
This Court adopts the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator but resolves to increase the imposed penalty.
Grave abuse of authority is the "misdemeanor committed by a public officer, who under color of his [or her] office, wrongfully inflict[s] upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment[,] or other injury." 21 It exhibits "cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority." 22
Misconduct was defined in AAA v. Salazar: 23
. . . as a "transgression of some established and definite rule of action." It includes the unlawful behavior or gross negligence of a public officer. The penalty of dismissal is warranted when the misconduct is of a "grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous" character and must imply a wrongful intent, not just a mere error of judgment. Gross misconduct is characterized by a "clear intent to violate the law" or a blatant disregard of some established rule. 24 (Citations omitted)
Not only was respondent's act of implementing the Writ of Preliminary Attachment within his authority, it was also his duty. While this Court agrees with Deputy Court Administrator Villanueva that respondent's acts do not constitute a grave offense, this Court cannot turn a blind eye to respondent's excessive and unwarranted use of force in implementing the writ.
This Court affirms Deputy Court Administrator Villanueva's adoption of the Provincial Prosecutor's findings in the Criminal Complaint instituted against respondent. In his Resolution, 25 the Provincial Prosecutor found:
The main gate of Garlan's residence and computer box of the Ford Explorer were deliberately damaged. The CCTV video clearly showed a man climbing over the gate and he immediately broke whatever was keeping the gate closed using what appears to be a mallet, with no attempt to seek out anyone from inside the compound. Further, not one among S[i]gales, Mendoza and Jacinto denied that the gate was forced open with a mallet and that the computer box of the Ford Explorer was destroyed, although apparently the latter act failed to start the vehicle as it is not among those seized. 26 (Emphasis supplied)
This Court first underscores that there was no justifiable reason why the group failed to ask anyone inside the house to open the gate, considering that complainant's driver and two (2) housekeepers were there. Respondent did not claim of any resistance on their part.
Respondent does not deny the excessive and unnecessary use of force; rather, he justified it as "acting under the legal authority of the court[.]" 27 He disputed complainant's claim by alleging that complainant admitted to welcoming their group — which notably included no less than 10 local police officers, as respondent avers — to his residence. 28 This is false.
In his Affidavit, complainant stated that the law enforcers had initially arrived at his office to implement the writ. 29 However, upon leaving them to attend to his business engagements in Sultan Kudarat and Davao City, he later received a call from his wife that their house had been raided. 30 Nowhere in complainant's Affidavit did he ever admit having welcomed the group to his residence, contrary to respondent's contention.
Moreover, respondent's unsubstantiated claim not just fails to persuade, but escapes logic. He averred that while one (1) of his assistants was in the house trying to start a vehicle, complainant's housekeeper locked the gate, 31 which led him to order forcibly opening the gate lest his assistant be "trapped inside and left behind[.]" 32
This "assistant" was supposedly enforcing the writ under respondent's watch, but was incidentally not named, let alone able to corroborate this claim. He or she was allegedly bound to be trapped inside the residence, but there was no reason averred why the person could not have opened the gate him or herself. It defies common sense.
Finally, this Court notes that complainant's driver, Paul Escorido Pastolero, stated in his Sworn Affidavit 33 that the group had entered the residence without the presence of his employers, Garlan and his spouse. 34 They allegedly "forced and manipulated in (sic) turning on the engines of the three vehicles because they had no keys[.]" 35 There was no assertion that they had requested them.
Sheriffs are public officers with whom public trust is reposed. 36 They are obliged to perform their duties while respecting the party litigants' rights, without needless violence and oppression. In Spouses Stilgrove v. Sabas: 37
It is well to remind Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs that they are officers of the court, and considered agents of the law. They form an integral part of the administration of justice because they are called upon to serve court writs, execute all processes, and carry into effect the orders of the Court, as such, they should discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence. The expeditious and efficient execution of court orders and writs should not be at the expense of due process and fair play. 38
In Philippine Bank of Communications v. Torio, 39 this Court denounced the sheriffs' oppressive manner and use of unnecessary force in enforcing a writ of execution:
Contrary to the claims of complainant, the enforcement of the writ of execution by Torio and Gumboc were not prematurely made. Nonetheless, the same were irregularly done in an oppressive manner. It is conceded that respondents took it upon themselves to force open and destroy the bank vault when the bank employees refused to open the vault and turn over the cash demanded from them in satisfaction of the judgment. The pictures submitted in evidence show that they went to the bank provided with an acetylene torch, a large acetylene tank, and a big sledgehammer.
It was imprudent of Torio and Gumboc to resort to such unwarranted force and unnecessary destruction of property merely because the officers of the PBCom Buendia Branch supposedly refused to cooperate with them and meet their demands. It is clear that what initially transpired was a mere misunderstanding as the bank officials were seeking clarification as to the validity of the writ and the finality of the decision presented to them.
Respondents could have resolved the dispute in a lawful, prudent and orderly manner, observing the high degree of diligence and professionalism expected of them as agents of the law. They could have sealed or placed the vault under guard and asked the prevailing party to obtain a "break open" or judicial order, instead of being more interested than the litigant corporation itself and employing extreme measures by summarily destroying the vault in order to seize the cash kept therein. This is the kind of individual offensive conduct that unfairly puts the entire corps of sheriffs in disrepute or public suspicion, to the prejudice of the dedicated and trustworthy members thereof. 40
This Court resolved to fine the abusive sheriffs in Philippine Bank of Communications in the amount of P5,000.00 each. That was in 1998. Yet, two decades later, we are still faced with similar reports of abusive sheriffs. Indeed, to echo the case, "it is high time to take firm action and make this case serve as an example of such judicial policy and resolve." 41
This Court has cautioned every person involved in dispensing justice to always act "with propriety and decorum[.]" 42 Respondent's abuse of his authority and failure to satisfactorily explain the violence he employed does not meet the exacting standard we impose on our officers.
Nonetheless, his acts only constituted simple misconduct, not grave abuse of authority or grave misconduct. This Court agrees with Deputy Court Administrator Villanueva:
Grave abuse of authority is synonyms with oppression. The excesses of respondent Sheriff and of the company in the implementation of the writ may not be classified as oppressive but as a simple case of misconduct as damaging the gate and the Ford was unnecessary to effect the writ's implementation. He cannot be held liable for grave misconduct since this offense requires substantial evidence showing that the acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. In this case, there is lack of evidence showing that respondent Sheriff's actuations were motivated by any corrupt interest or were done intentionally or willfully to violate the law and the established rules. 43 (Citation omitted)
Under the 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple misconduct is a less grave offense 44 punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months 45 on the first offense. This Court disagrees with Deputy Court Administrator Villanueva's conclusion that because "[s]uspending respondent Sheriff would prejudice the court's operations as the implementation of writs and decisions would be hampered," 46 a fine of one (1)-month salary is a sufficient penalty.
This Court cannot tolerate a court employee's propensity to use unnecessary force and abuse one's authority — which, in this case, caused damage to property — in the guise of dispensing justice. Thus, this Court resolves to suspend respondent from office for one (1) year.
WHEREFORE, respondent Sheriff IV Ken P. Sigales, Jr. is found GUILTY of simple misconduct in the discharge of his duties, and is SUSPENDED from office for one (1) year, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-4.
2.Id. at 58. The writ was signed by Clerk of Court V Atty. Veronica DL. Claveria-Badong of Branch 32, Regional Trial Court, Pili, Camarines Sur.
3.Id. at 5 and 59-62. The civil case was decided in the July 26, 2017 Order penned by Presiding Judge Vivencio Gregorio G. Atutubo III of Branch 32, Regional Trial Court, Pili, Camarines Sur. The number of the address, meanwhile, is sometimes written as 298 in the rollo.
4.Id. at 1 and 58.
5.Id. at 1.
6.Id. at 1-2.
7.Id. at 2.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 109-115. The Resolution was penned by Provincial Prosecutor Joseph Boyd A. Atensor.
10.Id. at ILLEGIBLE PORTION.
11.Id. at 19-23.
12.Id. at 19.
13.Id. at 19-20.
14.Id. at 117-123.
15.Id. at 120.
16.Id. at 121-122 citing Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940) [Per J. Laurel, En Banc].
17.Id.
18.Id. at 121.
19.Id. at 121-123.
20.Id. at 123.
21.Spouses Stilgrove v. Sabas, 538 Phil. 232, 244 (2006) [Per J. Tinga, Third Division].
22.Id.
23. A.M. No. HOJ-08-02, October 2, 2018, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64704> [Per Curiam, En Banc].
24.Id.
25.Rollo, pp. 109-115.
26.Id. at 113.
27.Id. at 21.
28.Id. at 20.
29.Id. at 1.
30.Id. at 2.
31.Id. at 20.
32.Id. at 21.
33. Id. at 9-10.
34. Id. at 9.
35. Id.
36. Cruz v. Villar, 427 Phil. 229, 235 (2002) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
37. 538 Phil. 232 (2006) [Per J. Tinga, Third Division].
38. Id. at 249.
39. 348 ILLEGIBLE PORTION 74 (1998) [Per J. Regalado, Second Division].
40. Id. at 86-87.
41. Id. at 87.
42. Ferrer v. Gapasin, Sr., 298 Phil. 572, 577 (1993) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
43. Rollo, p. 122.
44. REVISED RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, sec. 50 (D) (2).
45. REVISED RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, sec. 46 (A) (3).
46. Rollo, p. 123.