FIRST DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 18-4824-P. June 16, 2021.]
MELINDA MACINAS, ET AL., complainants,vs. RITCHIE M. ARCIAGA, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 256, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MUNTINLUPA CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 18-4824-P — MELINDA MACINAS, ET AL., complainants, versus RITCHIE M. ARCIAGA, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 256, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MUNTINLUPA CITY, respondent.
This is an Administrative Complaint 1 dated May 1, 2018 (Complaint) against respondent Ritchie M. Arciaga (respondent Arciaga), Sheriff IV of Branch 256 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City (RTC), for Gross Negligence and Dereliction of Duty, in connection with Civil Case Nos. 04-060, 04-061, 04-068, 04-084, 04-088, 04-089, and 04-090, entitled "Aida Macaraig Posadas v. Maximo Capuquian, et al." (the Civil Cases). 2
Complainants alleged that on April 11, 2018, at around 9:00 a.m., respondent Arciaga, accompanied by several men, came to their place at Upper Sucat Highway, Muntinlupa City, and presented a Special Order of Demolition 3 dated October 13, 2017 issued by the RTC in the Civil Cases. After perusing the copy of the Special Order of Demolition, complainants yielded and allowed respondent Arciaga to carry out the demolition. 4
On April 13, 2018, respondent Arciaga allegedly returned and informed complainants that other houses would also be demolished. He showed them a copy of a Notice to Vacate and Pay 5 dated May 26, 2017, which directed the defendants and/or any persons claiming rights under them to vacate Lot G-5 of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 158292 6 (the property) within five days from notice. 7
Complainants protested the demolition and explained to respondent Arciaga that their houses should not be included. They claimed that the entries in the Notice to Vacate and Pay run counter to the wording of the Writ of Execution, which ordered "the defendants and/or any other persons claiming rights under them to immediately vacate [the property] and to surrender the possession thereof to plaintiff and her co-owners." 8 Complainants also alleged that the phrase "or any person occupying the premises" in the Notice to Vacate and Pay is a unilateral proclamation of respondent Arciaga that is aimed to satisfy the whims and caprices of Aida Macaraig Posadas (Posadas), the plaintiff in the Civil Cases. 9
Because of the alleged illegal demolition of their houses due to gross negligence of respondent Arciaga, complainants allegedly sustained damages, and became homeless and morally devastated. 10
On May 31, 2018, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through its 1st Indorsement, referred the Complaint to respondent Arciaga for comment. 11
In his Comment 12 dated July 26, 2018, respondent Arciaga explained that there are other civil cases 13 for recovery of possession filed by Posadas in connection with the property. He narrated that, on different dates, the RTC rendered judgments 14 against the defendants in these civil cases, ordering the defendants and/or any persons claiming rights under them to immediately vacate the property. These decisions subsequently attained finality and writs of execution 15 were issued to enforce them.
Consequently, respondent Arciaga served Notices to Vacate and Pay 16 upon the said defendants, giving them five days from receipt thereof to vacate the property. When the said defendants failed to do so, respondent Arciaga prepared Returns 17 on the writs of execution, stating that they were unimplemented. Posadas then filed motions for demolition in the civil cases, which the RTC granted in Special Orders of Demolition 18 dated June 1, 2015 to May 29, 2017 (Special Orders of Demolition).
Prior to implementing the demolition and in compliance with OCA Circular No. 118-2013, respondent Arciaga scheduled a pre-demolition conference with the affected parties on February 2, 2018. 19 After the pre-demolition conference, respondent Arciaga, with the assistance of the police, implemented the demolition orders by ejecting the said defendants and complainants from the property, and removing the improvements and structures thereon. 20
Respondent Arciaga also averred that, although complainants are not included in the Civil Cases, they are nonetheless involved in other civil cases filed by Posadas where the RTC also issued Special Orders of Demolition. Since complainants derived their rights from the defendants in the other civil cases, their rights cannot be superior to that of the said defendants. Moreover, considering that complainants never appeared in court, either as intervenors or third-party complainants, to vindicate their claims, they are already guilty of laches. 21
In their Rejoinder to Respondent's Comment 22 dated October 16, 2018, complainants insisted that they are not privy in any of the civil cases mentioned by respondent Arciaga. 23
The OCA recommends the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. 24
The OCA explained that sheriffs have no discretion on whether or not to implement a writ of execution. Unless restrained by court, they should see to it that the execution of judgments is not unduly delayed. 25 Here, apart from the absence of any restraining order, complainants also failed to substantiate their allegation that their houses were illegally demolished. 26 They failed to show that their houses were not within the property. In contrast, respondent Arciaga was able to sufficiently establish that complainants are included in the demolition orders as persons claiming rights under the said defendants. He also demonstrated compliance with the procedure laid down in OCA Circular No. 118-2013. Therefore, the presumption that respondent Arciaga performed his duties regularly prevails in this case. 27
The Court finds the OCA's recommendation in order.
In Re: Complaint of Aero Engr. Darwin A. Reci against Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and Deputy Court Administrator Thelma C. Bahia Relative to Criminal Case No. 05-236956, 28 the Court explained what constitutes dereliction of duty and gross negligence, viz.:
Dereliction of duty may be classified as gross or simple neglect of duty or negligence. Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence "refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property." It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty. In cases involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. In contrast, simple neglect of duty means the failure of an employee or official to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a "disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference." 29
Applying the foregoing in this case, the Court finds that respondent Arciaga is not guilty of either simple or gross negligence in the implementation of the Special Orders of Demolition.
It is axiomatic that the party asserting a fact or the affirmative of an issue has the burden of proving it. 30 Here, although complainants claim that their houses should not have been included in the demolition, they did not present, even a scintilla of evidence, that their properties or houses were not within the property for which demolition orders were issued by the RTC. In their complaint and reply, they merely denied being privy to the civil cases filed by Posadas in relation to the property. As correctly found by the OCA, complainants failed to discharge their burden of proving, by substantial evidence, their allegations against respondent Arciaga, particularly that he acted with gross negligence in the implementation of the demolition orders.
On the other hand, respondent Arciaga satisfactorily demonstrated that he dutifully enforced the decisions and writs of execution, and implemented the demolition orders. With respect to the latter, the records bear that respondent Arciaga also complied with OCA Circular No. 118-2013 by setting a pre-demolition conference with the affected parties. The steps taken by respondent Arciaga belie complainants' claim that he was grossly negligent in the performance of his duties.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Complaint dated May 1, 2018 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The verified complaint dated May 1, 2018 (with enclosures) of Melinda Macinas, Anita Febres, Rosalia Aquino, Felipe Tekiner, Rona Maano, Jemar Epan, Ludivina Lasco, Charmine Tekiner, and Elizabeth Dumalag, charging Sheriff IV Ritchie M. Arciaga with gross negligence and dereliction of duty relative to Civil Case Nos. 04-060, 04-061, 04-068, 04-084, 04-088, 04-089 and 04-090 entitled "Aida Macaraig Posadas vs. Marino Capaquian, et al.;" the comment (with enclosures) of Sheriff IV Ritchie M. Arciaga on the complaint; the rejoinder (with enclosures) of Melinda Macinas, et al., to the respondent's comment on the complaint; and the Report dated January 8, 2021 of the Office of the Court Administrator, are all NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-2, excluding Annexes.
2.Id. at 1.
3.Id. at 5.
4.Id. at 1.
5.Id. at 10.
6.Id. at 1.
7.Id. at 10.
8.Id. at 8.
9.Id. at 2.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 36.
12.Id. at 38-41, excluding Annexes.
13. Civil Case Nos. 04-070 and 04-075, entitled "Aida Macaraig Posadas v. Edgardo Lasco, et al."; Civil Case Nos. 04-067, 04-069, and 04-074, entitled "Aida Macaraig Posadas v. Rufino Libranza, et al."; Civil Case Nos. 04-059, 04-062, 04-063, 04-064, 04-065, 04-066, 04-071, 04-072, 04-076, 04-077, 04-078, 04-079, 04-080, 04-081, 04-082, 04-083, 04-085, 04-086, and 04-087, entitled "Aida Macaraig Posadas v. Eddie Moreno, et al."; and Civil Case Nos. 01-109, 01-113, 01-115, and 01-116, entitled "Aida Macaraig Posadas v. Augusto Dulva, et al."
14.Rollo, pp. 43-46, 47-50, 51-55, 56-61, and 62-65.
15.Id. at 66-68, 69-71, 72-73, 74-48, and 79-80.
16.Id. at 81-82, 83-84, 85-86, 87-91, and 92-93.
17.Id. at 94-95, 96-97, 98, 99-102, and 103.
18.Id. at 104, 105-106, 107, 108, and 109.
19.Id. at 110-118.
20.Id. at 126.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 121-123.
23.Id. at 122.
24.Id. at 132-136.
25.Id. at 135.
26.Id. at 136.
27.Id. at 135.
28. A.M. No. 17-01-04-SC, February 7, 2017, 817 SCRA 14.
29.Id. at 16-17. Citations omitted.
30.Songahid, Jr. v. Terrano, G.R. No. 212834, March 25, 2019.