FIRST DIVISION
[OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4120-P. October 12, 2020.]
SPOUSES JOHN JOSE AND MA. TERESA GUIAB, complainants,vs. GLENN A. UMALI, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 10, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 12, 2020which reads as follows:
"OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4120-P (Spouses John Jose and Ma. Teresa Guiab v. Glenn A. Umali, Sheriff IV, Branch 10, Regional Trial Court, Malolos City, Bulacan) — The case arose from an Affidavit-Complaint 1 dated April 5, 2013 filed by complainants Spouses John Jose Guiab and Ma. Teresa Guiab against respondent Glenn A. Umali, Sheriff IV, Branch 10, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos City, Bulacan for grave misconduct, disgraceful and immoral conduct, grave abuse of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, in relation to Civil Case No. 90-M-2013 2 where complainants are the defendants.
Complainants alleged that respondent was intoxicated during the implementation of a tampered Writ of Preliminary Attachment on March 26, 2013. Complainants further asserted that respondent compelled them, by means of intimidation, to give the key to the motor vehicle and threatened them that if they did not comply to his demands, its lock would be destroyed in order to implement the writ. When complainants' lawyer inquired into the alleged alterations in the writ of attachment, respondent left unnoticed. Complainants claimed that they were humiliated since many people witnessed how Sheriff Umali who, reeked with liquor, acted in the implementation of the writ.
Complainants added 3 that on April 21, 2013 respondent who, acting in conspiracy with police officers, took control of their cargo trailer truck, under the guise of investigating and verifying the registration of the said cargo truck. Further, complainants maintained that the cargo trailer truck is in the possession of Alexander Supnet, the plaintiff in the civil case.
In his Reply-Affidavit, 4 respondent averred that the charges are merely bare assertions and insinuations made against him for the purpose of retaliation in connection with his performance as a sheriff. To bolster his defense, respondent elucidated that there was serious resistance on the part of the complainants when he was about to implement the writ of preliminary attachment. Respondent admitted that he demanded from complainants the keys of their vehicles, finding his action to be proper under the circumstances and required by the nature of his job as a sheriff to implement the writ. Respondent added that anent the alleged unauthorized alterations on the Notices of Levy on Attachment, the same were mere corrections on the notices so that the list of vehicles therein would reflect only those which were being levied upon at that time. Moreover, respondent maintained that complainants must have mistaken his slight slur in speech as a sign of intoxication.
As regards the incident on April 21, 2013, respondent maintained that complainants' driver refused to surrender the key of the cargo truck and in order not to frustrate the implementation of the writ of attachment, he instructed his assisting mechanic to hotwire the truck to allow respondent to take it into custody.
In its Report 5 dated May 28, 2015, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the instant administrative complaint against respondent be referred to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Malolos City, Bulacan for investigation, report and recommendation. The OCA deemed it proper that a full-blown trial be held as there are factual issues which need to be verified to determine with certainty the administrative liability of respondent, if any.
The case has been referred 6 to Judge Victoria C. Fernandez-Bernardo of the RTC of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 18, who, after investigation thereon, has submitted a Report 7 recommending that the administrative complaint against respondent Umali be dismissed for lack of substantial evidence. However, the Executive Judge recommended that Umali be admonished to be more courteous in implementing writs of attachment.
The Report revealed that respondent Umali was already dismissed from the service pursuant to a Resolution 8 dated January 24, 2017 of the Court En Banc in a separate administrative case 9 filed against him. However, the Executive Judge opined that although respondent was already dismissed from the public office, the Court is not ousted of its jurisdiction over an administrative matter by the mere fact that the respondent public official ceases to hold office during the pendency of the respondent's case.
The Executive Judge stated that "complainant overlooked the citation of the specific law or rule of court whereby Sheriff Umali is allegedly ignorant of in the implementation of the writ of preliminary attachment and service of summons," 10 and that for complainants' failure to appear in all the scheduled hearings, they failed to substantiate their charges against respondent. Moreover, according to the Executive Judge, the writ of attachment issued in Malolos City, Bulacan is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines, as was done by respondent in Ramon, Isabela, where the trailer truck was located. Hence, respondent is merely exercising his ministerial duty to implement the writ as a sheriff.
On June 3, 2019, the Court issued a Resolution 11 referring the matter to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
The OCA, in its Memorandum 12 dated March 2, 2020, recommended for the dismissal of the case against respondent Umali for lack of merit.
The OCA agreed with the findings of the Executive Judge that the complainants failed to substantiate their claims against respondent by substantial evidence. The OCA gave more credence to the explanation of respondent Umali, stating that a sheriff's role in the execution of judgments is purely ministerial, thus, respondent is merely executing the order of the court strictly to the letter. However, the OCA noted that since respondent has already been dismissed from the service, the recommendation of the Executive Judge to admonish respondent Umali is no longer appropriate.
After a careful review of the records of the case, We adopt the findings and recommendation of the OCA and resolve to dismiss the instant administrative case against Sheriff Glenn A. Umali for lack of merit.
Well-settled is the rule that, in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. 13 In the present case, however, the complainants miserably failed to discharge the burden.
An assiduous scrutiny of the records would reveal that aside from complainants' bare allegations, no other clear, convincing and satisfactory proof was presented to show that respondent Sheriff exceeded his mandate in implementing the writ of attachment. It is elementary that in the absence of cogent proof, bare allegations of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the exercise of official functions. 14 Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence 15 Corollarily, We agree with the OCA that more credence should be given to respondent Sheriff's explanation. When writs are placed in a Sheriff's hands, it is his ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with their mandate. 16 He must comply with his mandated ministerial duty as speedily as possible. 17 Here, it is clear that respondent is merely performing his ministerial duty as a Sheriff when he implemented the writ of attachment. There is nothing to show that the same was irregularly done in an oppressive manner. Hence, absent any showing that respondent Sheriff acted beyond the bounds of propriety required of him as an employee of the court, complainants' assertions must fail.
Moreover, noteworthy to mention is that the Office of the Executive Judge set the instant administrative case for hearing particularly on March 28, 2016, May 25, 2016, September 7, 2016, November 30, 2016 and April 5, 2018. However, complainants' failed to appear in all the scheduled hearings. Indubitably, no evidence was presented during the investigation to prove that the act of respondent Sheriff amounted to grave misconduct, disgraceful and immoral conduct, grave abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Complainants' failure to present sufficient and concrete evidence to substantiate their accusations against respondent Sheriff is fatal to their case. Consequently, the instant administrative complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.
Finally, We agree with the OCA that since respondent has already been dismissed from service, the recommendation of the Executive Judge to admonish respondent Sheriff to be more courteous in implementing writs of attachment is no longer appropriate.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against respondent Glenn A. Umali, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Malolos City, Bulacan for Grave Misconduct, Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct, Grave Abuse of Authority, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." Rosario, J., designated Member per Special Order No. 2794 dated October 9, 2020.
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. 39-42.
2. Entitled "Alexander Supnet v. Sps. John Guiab and Ma. Teresa Guiab" for Collection of sum of Money with Preliminary Attachment; id. at 61-67.
3. In a Supplemental Affidavit Complaint dated May 18, 2013; id. at 1-4.
4.Rollo, pp. 72-77.
5.Id. at 106-108.
6. Resolution dated August 19, 2015, id. at 109-110.
7.Rollo, pp. 132-136.
8.Id. at 128-131.
9. A.M. No. P-16-3615 (formerly A.M. No. 15-8-429-RTC) entitled "Marita Tolentino and Fely San Andres v. Sheriff IV Glenn A. Umali, Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Malolos City, Bulacan" for grave misconduct; id.
10. Report of Executive Judge Victoria C. Fernandez-Bernardo dated May 8, 2018; rollo, pp. 132-136.
11.Rollo, p. 152.
12.Id. at 158-160.
13.Ferancullo v. Atty. Ferancullo, Jr., 538 Phil. 501, 511 (2006).
14.Atty. Reyes v. Clerk of Court Jamora, et al., 634 Phil. 1, 8 (2010).
15.Dr. De Jesus v. Guerrero III, et al., 614 Phil. 520, 529 (2009).
16.Aquino v. Lavadia, 417 Phil. 770, 776 (2001).
17.Id.