Mañalac v. Jimenez-Ines

FIRST DIVISION

[OCA IPI No. 18-4849-P. January 15, 2020.]

CARLOS M. MAÑALAC,complainant,vs. ATTY. MINERVA A. JIMENEZ-INES, CLERK OF COURT V, BRANCH 4, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), MARIVELES, BATAAN, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 15, 2020which reads as follows:

"OCA IPI No. 18-4849-P — (Carlos M. Mañalac v. Atty. Minerva A. Jimenez-Ines, Clerk of Court V, Branch 4, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Mariveles, Bataan).

Complainant Carlos Mañalac charged respondent Atty. Minerva A. Jimenez-Ines with delaying the administration of justice, bias, and partiality relative to Extra-Judicial Foreclosure No. 033-ML, entitled "Philippine Investment One (SPV-AMC), Inc. v. Diversified Plastic Film, Inc."

Complainant essentially alleged: He is the Chairman and General Manager of Philippine Investment One (SPV-AMC), Inc. (hereinafter, PI One). HTcADC

Diversified Plastic Film Systems, Inc. (Diversified) had an outstanding loan obligation with PI One, covered by a Mortgage Trust Indenture (MTI). In view of Diversified's failure to pay the loan, PI One applied for the extra-judicial foreclosure of the MTI. Upon Diversified's motion, Judge Emmanuel Silva of Branch 4, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Mariveles, Bataan issued a preliminary injunction against the extra-judicial foreclosure sale, but the same was later dissolved. Under Resolution 1 dated January 15, 2018 in SC G.R. No. 229229 entitled "Diversified Plastic Film Systems, Inc. v. Philippine Investment One (SPV-AMC), Inc." the Supreme Court dismissed with finality Diversified's appeal on the dissolution of the preliminary injunction. The January 15, 2018 Resolution effectively ordered the Office of the Clerk of Court/Ex-Officio Sheriff (OCC) to proceed with the foreclosure of Diversified's MTI that had been pending before the OCC since February 13, 2015. But the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC Mariveles/Ex-Officio Sheriff, through then Atty. Rovelyn Baluyot, failed to implement the foreclosure.

The subsequent designation of respondent Atty. Minerva A. Jimenez-Ines as the new clerk of court/ex-officio provincial sheriff tasked to implement the foreclosure is another glaring move to further delay the foreclosure proceedings. Respondent has continuously refused and/or failed to act on the matter, claiming she was on leave when she was in the office all the while. Her designation also shows bias in favor of Diversified as respondent is the clerk of court of Judge Silva who issued the preliminary injunction in favor of Diversified, for which Judge Silva was charged by PI One with an administrative complaint (OCA IPI NO. 15-4473-RTJ). 2 Respondent herself, in her letter response 3 dated May 16, 2018, gave Diversified an unsolicited advice to obtain an injunctive writ to enjoin the continuation of the foreclosure proceedings. 4

In her Comment,5respondent countered, in the main: The complaint lacks merit as it is solely based on the affidavit of PI One's Senior Account Manager, Loida Cabebe. The purported delay was primarily due to complainant's repeated attempt to intimidate Judge Silva and Atty. Baluyot by filing administrative complaints against them, forcing them to inhibit from ruling on the case and conducting the extra-judicial foreclosure sale, respectively, thus, resulting in another cycle for the appointment of new officers to handle the case. CAIHTE

Contrary to complainant's insinuations, her absences were duly authorized. Her vacation leave to travel to Singapore from June 12 to 16, 2018 was approved by the deputy court administrator and court administrator. 6 On June 19 to 21, 2018, she attended the Career Enhancement Program for RTC Clerk of Court of the 3rd Judicial Region, as evidenced by Administrative Circular No. 69-2018 authorizing her attendance to the program, certificate of completion of the training program, and travel authority approved by Judge Silva. 7

After receiving a copy of Office Memo No. 2018-007 8 designating her as acting ex-officio sheriff on April 27, 2018, she requested for time to study the records of the case which consisted of eight (8) volumes and involved large amounts of indebtedness and mortgaged properties. This was not a delaying tactic but an exercise of prudence as she wanted to have a working knowledge of the case before proceeding with any official action thereon.

Her designation as acting ex-officio sheriff is not tainted with partiality. She did not solicit her designation as such. Rather, it was directed by Acting Executive Judge Jose Marie A. Quimboy (RTC, Mariveles, Bataan) after Atty. Baluyot requested to be relieved as ex-officio sheriff following the administrative complaint initiated by PI One against Atty. Baluyot.

Anent her alleged unsolicited advice to complainant, the same was made in response to complainant's letter dated April 20, 2018 claiming that the foreclosure sale should be discontinued based on Diversified's Out-of-Court Restructuring Agreement (OCRA) with its creditors. She simply emphasized that the Office of the Clerk of Court/Ex-Officio Sheriff is not the proper forum that should pass upon the validity of the OCRA and prevent the continuation of the foreclosure proceedings.

Report and Recommendation of the

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.

The OCA noted that respondent was merely designated on April 26, 2018 as Acting Ex-Officio Sheriff in view of the inhibition of Atty. Rovelyn Baluyot (Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff) due to PI One's administrative complaint against her also in relation to the foreclosure case. Respondent received the case records the following day. Prudence dictates that she should verify if the application complied with Act 3135 9 and A.M. No. 99-10-05-0. 10 She cannot be faulted for being cautious in proceeding with the case in view of its complexity and the multitude of cases that arose therefrom. Complainant failed to present evidence of respondent's alleged bias and partiality in favor of Diversified. 11

Ruling

The Court adopts the factual findings, legal conclusions, and recommendations of the OCA.

To recall, respondent received the case records only on April 27, 2018, the day after she was designated as Acting Ex-Officio Sheriff. Respondent asked for time to study the case and its complicated background. But, as it was, complainant had already filed the instant administrative complaint against her on June 19, 2018. aScITE

As the designated Acting Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff, respondent is tasked to issue a notice of sheriff's sale upon receipt of the records of the case. Before conducting the public auction, however, A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 dated December 14, 1999, as amended by A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 dated August 7, 2001 requires her to examine if the application for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage has complied with all the requirements. Thus, while her duties appear to be ministerial, the same need not be performed in haste as it entails the exercise of prudence. Considering the huge amount of indebtedness and mortgaged properties and numerous cases that arose therefrom involving voluminous case records, respondent need to cautiously examine the application, including the case records, to ensure compliance with Act 3135 and A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 before proceeding with the public auction.

It is settled that allegation does not amount to proof. 12 Complainant's bare allegation of bias and partiality, sans any supporting evidence, will not suffice to hold respondent administratively liable.

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DISMISS the complaint against respondent Atty. Minerva A. Jimenez-Ines. DETACa

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 6-7.

2. Entitled "Carlos Gaudencio M. Mañalac v. Judge Emmanuel A. Silva, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Mariveles, Bataan."

3.Rollo, pp. 48-50.

4.Id. at 3-5.

5.Id. at 34-40.

6.Id. at 43-44.

7.Id. at 45-47.

8.Id. at 42.

9. An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real Estate Mortgages.

10. Procedure in Extra-Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage.

11.Rollo, pp. 57-65.

12.Villarosa v. The Honorable Ombudsman, G.R. No. 221418, January 23, 2019.