Alibsar Adoma vs. Romeo Gatcheco

1. ALIBSAR ADOMA vs. ROMEO GATCHECO, [A.M. No. P-05-1942. January 17, 2005] FACTS: Alibsar Adoma filed an administrative complaint against respondent Romeo Gatcheco for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and conduct unbecoming a court employee which arose from the execution of a writ of replevin in Adoma v. Spouses Edmundo Andres and Luzviminda Andres for recovery of possession of motor vehicle with prayer for the issuance of a writ of replevin before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Santiago City. Complainant Alibsar Adoma claimed that on August 16, 2003 a writ of replevin for the recovery of an L-300 van was issued in his favor which, on the same day was implemented by respondent sheriff Romeo Gatcheco accompanied and assisted by respondent Eugenio Taguba, a process server of Branch 2 of MTCC, Santiago City. After the two respondents seized the vehicle, they demanded payment of P8,000.00, allegedly promised by complainant but the latter was able to give only P1,000.00 and another P1,000.00 the following day. The vehicle is still undelivered on the 7 th day despite the fact that the writ of replevin stated that the vehicle will be delivered to complainant after 5 days from the implementation thereof. With this, complainant threatened to file an administrative case against respondent sheriff. Finally, on August 29, 2003, the latter was forced to release the vehicle to complainant. Respondents, however, continued to demand P6,000.00, hence complainant filed the instant administrative case. [3] COMPLAINANT’S CONTENTION: Respondent sheriff deliberately failed to place complainant in possession of the vehicle after five days from the implementation of the writ because the latter failed to give the whole amount he promised. RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: We did not solicit and receive any amount from the complainant but instead it is the complainant who promised to give us P10,000.00 if the vehicle will be sold. Further, the vehicles were not released to complainant after 5 days from the implementation of the writ on August 16, 2003, because he was awaiting instructions from Judge. In her investigation report, Judge Madrid, Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Santiago City, Isabela, found the testimony of

Upload
arline-carias
Category

Documents
view
221
download
6

Embed Size (px):

description

Special Procedures Cases

Transcript of Alibsar Adoma vs. Romeo Gatcheco

1. ALIBSAR ADOMA vs. ROMEO GATCHECO, [A.M. No. P-05-1942.J!"#$ 1%, 2005&'ACTS( Alibsar Adoma fled an administrative complaint against respondent RomeoGatchecofor violation of Republic Act No. 3019(AntiGraftand!orrupt "racticesAct# and conduct unbecoming a court emplo$ee %hich arose from the e&ecution of a%rit of replevin inAdoma v. 'pouses (dmundo Andres and )u*viminda Andresforrecover$ of possession of motor vehicle %ith pra$er for the issuance of a %rit ofreplevin before the +unicipal ,rial !ourt in !ities (+,!!# of 'antiago !it$.!omplainant Alibsar Adoma claimed that on August 1-. /003 a %rit of replevin forthe recover$ of an )300 van %as issued in his favor %hich. on the same da$ %asimplemented b$ respondent sheri0 Romeo Gatcheco accompanied and assisted b$respondent (ugenio ,aguba. a process server of 1ranch / of +,!!. 'antiago !it$.After the t%o respondents sei*ed the vehicle. the$ demanded pa$ment of"2.000.00. allegedl$ promised b$ complainant but the latter %as able to give onl$"1.000.00 and another "1.000.00 the follo%ing da$.,hevehicleisstill undeliveredonthe3thda$despitethefact that the%rit ofreplevin stated that the vehicle %ill be delivered to complainant after 4 da$s fromthe implementation thereof. 5ith this. complainant threatened to fle anadministrativecaseagainstrespondentsheri0. 6inall$. onAugust/9. /003. thelatter %asforcedtoreleasethevehicletocomplainant. Respondents. ho%ever.continued to demand "-.000.00. hence complainant fled the instant administrativecase.738COMPLAINANT)SCONTENTION9Respondent sheri0deliberatel$failedtoplacecomplainant in possession of the vehicle after fve da$s from the implementation ofthe %rit because the latter failed to give the %hole amount he promised.RESPONDENT)S CONTENTION9 5e did not solicit and receive an$ amount fromthe complainant but instead it is the complainant %ho promised to give us"10.000.00ifthevehicle%ill besold. 6urther. thevehicles%erenotreleasedtocomplainant after 4 da$s from the implementation of the %rit on August 1-. /003.because he %as a%aiting instructions from :udge.;nher investigationreport. :udge+adrid. (&ecutive:udge. Regional ,rial !ourt.'antiago !it$. ;sabela. found the testimon$ of complainant %hich %as corroboratedb$ t%o %itnesses. to be more credible. 'he refused to believe the claimofrespondent sheri0 that he did not release the vehicle to complainant after 4 da$sfrom the implementation of the %rit on August 1-. /003. because he %as a%aitinginstructions from :udge "lata.