AM P-05-2059
5
FIRST DIVISION [A.M. No. P-05-2059. August 19, 20 05] ATTY. AUDIE C. ARNADO, complainant , vs. EDILBERTO R. SUARIN, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 8, Cebu City, respondent . D E C I S I O N YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: In his complaint [1] filed on October 3, 2003 with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Atty. Audie C. Arnado charged Sheriff III Edilberto R. Suarin of Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)-Cebu City, Branch 8, with Serious Misconduct, Oppression, Harassment and Unethical Conduct relative to Civil Case No. R- 37529 entitled Lourdes L. Rosaroso v. Sps. Audie and Caroline Arnado. Complainant alleged that Sheriff Suarin prematurely implemented the writ of execution and served notices to vacate by banging his gate, shouting and creating public scandal, and posting notices at the gate which caused him humiliation. [2] In his Comment, [3] Sheriff Suarin alleged that he merely implemented the final decision of the trial court. [4] He belied the allegations in the complaint and claimed that he always used the buzzer each time he served the notice in complainant’s residence; that an employee of spouses Arnado would open the peep hole and inform him that the spouses are not around then instruct him to slip the notice in the opening underneath the gate. In the March 30, 2003 Agenda Report, [5] the OCA recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Sheriff Suarin for lack of merit and that Atty. Arnado be directed to explain why he should not be administratively sanctioned for filing a frivolous complaint, which recommendation was adopted by this Court in its Resolution [6] of June 7, 2004. In his Comment, [7] Atty. Arnado maintained that his complaint against Sheriff Suarin is not frivolous and was not filed to exact revenge but to bring to the attention of the Court the corrupt acts of judicial employees. He alleged that Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores of MTC C-Cebu City, Branch I, was paid P30,000.00 to render the judgment of eviction while Sheriff Suarin receiv ed P60,000.00 to implement the same. The latter allegedly implemented the writ w ithout waiting for the trial court’s resolution of their complaint to annul the sale and deed of donation.
-
Upload
kelly-thompson -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
description
AM P-05-2059
Transcript of AM P-05-2059
-
FIRSTDIVISION
[A.M.No.P052059.August19,2005]
ATTY.AUDIEC.ARNADO,complainant,vs.EDILBERTOR.SUARIN,SheriffIII,MunicipalTrialCourtinCities,Branch8,CebuCity,respondent.
DECISIONYNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
Inhiscomplaint[1]
filedonOctober3,2003with theOfficeof theCourtAdministrator (OCA),Atty.AudieC.ArnadochargedSheriff IIIEdilbertoR.SuarinofMunicipalTrialCourtinCities(MTCC)CebuCity,Branch8,withSeriousMisconduct,Oppression,HarassmentandUnethicalConductrelativetoCivilCaseNo.R37529entitledLourdesL.Rosarosov.Sps.AudieandCarolineArnado.
ComplainantallegedthatSheriffSuarinprematurelyimplementedthewritofexecutionandservednoticestovacatebybanginghisgate,shoutingandcreating
publicscandal,andpostingnoticesatthegatewhichcausedhimhumiliation.[2]
InhisComment,[3]
SheriffSuarinallegedthathemerelyimplementedthefinaldecisionofthetrialcourt.[4]
Hebeliedtheallegationsinthecomplaintandclaimedthathealwaysused thebuzzereach timeheserved thenotice incomplainants residence thatanemployeeofspousesArnadowouldopen thepeepholeandinformhimthatthespousesarenotaroundtheninstructhimtoslipthenoticeintheopeningunderneaththegate.
IntheMarch30,2003AgendaReport,[5]
theOCArecommendedthedismissalofthecomplaintagainstSheriffSuarinforlackofmeritandthatAtty.Arnadobedirected to explain why he should not be administratively sanctioned for filing a frivolous complaint, which recommendation was adopted by this Court in its
Resolution[6]
ofJune7,2004.
InhisComment,[7]
Atty. Arnadomaintained that his complaint against Sheriff Suarin is not frivolous andwas not filed to exact revenge but to bring to theattentionof theCourt thecorruptactsof judicialemployees.HeallegedthatJudgeMamertoY.ColifloresofMTCCCebuCity,BranchI,waspaidP30,000.00torenderthejudgmentofevictionwhileSheriffSuarinreceivedP60,000.00toimplementthesame.Thelatterallegedlyimplementedthewritwithoutwaitingforthetrialcourtsresolutionoftheircomplainttoannulthesaleanddeedofdonation.
-
TheOCArecommendedthatcomplainant,Atty.ArnadobefinedintheamountofP5,000.00forfilingagroundlesssuit.[8]
WeagreewiththefindingsoftheOCA.ItappearsthatinCivilCaseNo.R37529forEjectmentfiledbyLourdesL.RosarosoagainstspousesArnadobeforeMTCCCebuCity,Branch1,decisionwas
rendereddirecting,amongothers,spousesArnadotovacatethepremisesandturnoverphysicalpossessionthereoftoRosaroso.Thedecisionbecamefinaland
executory[9]
onDecember9,1999perEntryofJudgmentissuedbytheJudicialRecordsOffice[10]
ofthisCourt.
OnApril28,2000,JudgeColifloresissuedaWritofExecution[11]
butitsimplementationwasdelayed[12]
becausespousesArnadofiledseveralmotions.They
moved to quash the writ and/or suspend execution but the same was denied.[13]
After denial of their motion for reconsideration,[14]
they filed a petition for
certiorari[15]
withtheRTCprayingthatMTCCbeorderedtostayexecution[16]
pendingresolutionofCivilCaseNo.CEB19194forNullityorAnnulmentofSaleand
RevocationofDonationwithDamages[17]
beforetheRTCofCebuCity.TheyalsomovedfortheinhibitionofJudgeColifloreswhichwasgranted,hence,thecase
wasraffledtoMTCCCebuCity,Branch8,presidedbyJudgeEdgemeloC.Rosales.[18]
InanOrderdatedJanuary25,2002,[19]
JudgeRosalesdirectedfullimplementationofthewrit.Again,Atty.Arnadomovedtoquashthewrit[20]
butthesame
wasdeniedonFebruary19,2002.[21]
APetition forCertiorariwas filedbeforeRTCCebuCity,Branch12whichwasalsodenied.[22]
Theorderdismissing the
applicationforpreliminaryinjunctiontostopexecutionlikewisebecamefinalandexecutory.[23]
ThewritwasimplementedinitiallybySheriffIIIRoldanArteswhoservedaNoticetoVacate,a2ndNoticetoVacateandNoticetoImplementWritofExecution,
andaNoticeofLevyonExecutionuponRealProperty[24]
whichwereallunheeded.Onsubsequentdates,[25]
SheriffSuarinattemptedtoservethenotices,but
spousesArnadowerenotaroundandthelattersemployeesrefusedhimentry.Thus,onOctober11,2002,anorder[26]
tobreakopenthepremiseswasissuedbyJudgeRosales.
Atty. Arnado sought reconsideration of the break open order andmoved to inhibit JudgeRosales and charged him administratively[27]
forPartiality, Gross
IgnoranceoftheLawandGraveAbuseofDiscretion.[28]
Incidentally,thisCourtdismissedAtty.ArnadoscomplaintagainstJudgeRosalesforlackofsufficientevidenceandatthesametimereferredthecountercharge
ofJudgeRosalestotheOfficeoftheBarConfidantforappropriateaction.[29]
Thereafter,SheriffSuarinserveda2ndNoticetoVacatedatedJanuary7,2003,[30]
3rdNoticetoVacatedatedSeptember16,2003,[31]
andaFinalNoticeto
-
VacatedatedOctober6,2003[32]
butonlytotheemployeesofspousesArnadobecausethelatterwerenotalwaysaround.ItiswelltonotethatasearlyasDecember9,1999,thejudgmentintheejectmentcasehasbecomefinalandexecutory,butthroughlegalmaneuverings,Atty.
Arnadowasabletodelayitsexecutionforseveralyears.Inadministrativeproceedings,complainantshavetheburdenofprovingbysubstantialevidencetheallegationsintheircomplaints.Administrativeproceedings
againstjudicialemployeesarebynature,highlypenalincharacterandaretobegovernedbytherulesapplicabletocriminalcases.Thequantumofproofrequired
tosupporttheadministrativechargesshouldthusbemoresubstantialandtheymustbeprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt.[33]
Inthiscase,Atty.Arnadonotonlylackedpersonalknowledgeofthechargesbutalsofailedtosubstantiatethem.HeclaimedthatSheriffSuarinbangedathisgate,shoutedandpostednoticesatthegatebuthefailedtomentionthedetailsandthedatesonwhichtheseinfractionswereallegedtohavebeencommitted.Hepresentednowitnessestoprovehisclaimparticularlyhisemployeeswhohadalwaysinformedthesheriffthatheandhiswifewereawayeachtimethenoticeswereserved.
Atty.ArnadomustknowthatitwastheministerialdutyofSheriffSuarintoimplementthewritofexecutionandthathewasmerelyfollowingalawfulorderofthecourt. This complaint was filed less than a month after his complaint against Judge Rosales was dismissed. Atty. Arnado must be sanctioned for filing this
unfoundedcomplaint.Althoughnopersonshouldbepenalizedfortheexerciseoftherighttolitigate,however,thisrightmustbeexercisedingoodfaith.[34]
Asofficersofthecourt,lawyershavearesponsibilitytoassistintheproperadministrationofjustice.Theydonotdischargethisdutybyfilingfrivolouspetitionsthatonlyaddtotheworkloadofthejudiciary.
Alawyerispartofthemachineryintheadministrationofjustice.Likethecourtitself,heisaninstrumenttoadvanceitsendsthespeedy,efficient,impartial,correct and inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of final judgments. A lawyer should not only help attain these objectives but shouldlikewiseavoidunethicalorimproperpracticesthatimpede,obstructorpreventtheirrealization,chargedasheiswiththeprimarytaskofassistinginthespeedyand
efficientadministrationofjustice.[35]
Canon12[36]
oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitypromulgatedonJune21,1988isveryexplicitthatlawyersmustexerteveryeffortandconsiderittheirdutytoassistinthespeedyandefficientadministrationofjustice.
InRetuya v. Gorduiz,[37]
respondentlawyer was suspended for six (6) months for filing a groundless suit against a former client in order to harass andembarrassher.Inthiscase,wefindthefineofP5,000.00,asrecommendedbyOCA,commensurateunderthecircumstances.
Thepracticeoflawisasacredandnobleprofession.Itislimitedtopersonsofgoodmoralcharacterwithspecialqualificationsdulyascertainedandcertified.Therightdoesnotonlypresupposeinitspossessorintegrity,legalstandingandattainment,butalsotheexerciseofaspecialprivilege,highlypersonalandpartaking
ofthenatureofapublictrust.[38]
Thus,alawyershouldnotusehisknowledgeoflawasaninstrumenttoharassapartynortomisusejudicialprocesses,asthe
sameconstitutesserioustransgressionoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.[39]
WHEREFORE,Atty.AudieC.ArnadoisFINEDintheamountofP5,000.00forfilinggroundlesssuit.HeisSTERNLYWARNEDthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractwillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
-
SOORDERED.Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Quisumbing,Carpio,andAzcuna,JJ.,concur.
[1]Rollo,pp.001007.
[2]Id.at005.
[3]Id.at029030.
[4]Id.at029.
[5]Id.at084086.
[6]Id.at087.
[7]Id.at104113.
[8]Id.at118.
[9]Id.at3233.
[10]Id.at040.
[11]Id.at33.
[12]Id.at040.
[13]Id.at018.
[14]Id.at019.
[15]Id.at018027.
[16]Id.at024.
[17]Id.at010015.
-
[18]Id.at040.
[19]Id.
[20]Id.at041.
[21]Id.
[22]Id.at044.
[23]Id.
[24]Id.at035.
[25]Id.
[26]Id.at034035.
[27]Id.at049.
[28]DocketedasAdministrativeMatterOCAIPINo.031367MTJtitledAudieC.Arnadov.JudgeEdgemeloC.Rosales,MTCC,CebuCity,Branch8.
[29]PerResolutiondated8September2003,Rollo,p.54.
[30]Rollo,p.037.
[31]Id.at038.
[32]Id.at039.
[33]Duduacov.JudgeLaquindanum,A.M.No.MTJ051601,11August2005.
[34]Id.
[35]Agpalo,CommentsontheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityandtheCodeofJudicialConduct,2004Edition,p.117.
[36]Alawyershallexerteveryeffortandconsiderithisdutytoassistinthespeedyandefficientadministrationofjustice.
[37]Adm.CaseNo.1388,28March1980,96SCRA526,529530.
-
[38]Peoplev.Santocildes,Jr.,G.R.No.109149,21December1999,321SCRA310,316.
[39]Re:AdministrativeCaseAgainstAtty.Occea,433Phil.138,156(2002).
