EDGARDO A. QUILO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ROGELIO G. JUNDARINO, SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, MANILA,RESPONDENT.

Quilo versus Jundarino

The Case

This is an administrative case for grave misconduct, oppression, coercion, and harassment filed by Edgardo Quilo against Sheriff Rogelio Jundarino, Sheriff III of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. Quilo complains of the sheriff's words and conduct in serving a writ of execution and a notice to pay, vacate, and demolish premises in an ejectment case. The case matters because it fixes the line between a judicial question, which must be litigated in court, and an administrative question of a sheriff's decorum and procedure, which the Supreme Court may discipline directly.

Procedural History

Quilo filed his complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator, which required the sheriff to comment. After the exchange of pleadings, the Office of the Court Administrator submitted a report recommending that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that the sheriff be found guilty of simple misconduct and fined an amount equivalent to three months of his salary, with a stern warning. The Supreme Court ordered the case re-docketed as a regular administrative matter. The Court then resolved the case directly, as an administrative matter within its disciplinary authority over judicial employees.

Facts

Teodula Bajao sued Eduardo Saclag and others for unlawful detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. On 20 November 1998, the trial court ruled for Bajao, ordering the defendants to vacate the premises at 2519 Granate Street, Santa Ana, Manila, to demolish structures built on the land, to pay 20,000 pesos in attorney's fees, and to pay the costs of suit. The Regional Trial Court of Manila affirmed the decision with modification, and the Court of Appeals denied the defendants' appeal as filed out of time. The Supreme Court likewise denied their appeal, and that denial became final and executory on 28 July 2000.

Upon Bajao's motion, the Metropolitan Trial Court issued a writ of execution on 28 November 2007, commanding the sheriff to cause the surrender of the premises, to demolish all structures, and to collect the sums adjudged.

Quilo, who says he lives at 2518 Granate Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila, alleged that on 12 February 2008 the sheriff and another sheriff went to his house with a notice to pay, vacate, and demolish premises and a copy of the writ. He refused to accept the notice because he knew of no case against him and the address did not match his own. He alleged the sheriff left the papers on the cement in front of his house and shouted that Quilo would be the first he would work on and have demolished if he persisted in resisting. Quilo further alleged that on 27 March 2008 the sheriff returned, entered the house with Bajao and her relatives, and with about fifteen men carrying demolition tools outside, pressed his wife to sign a document asking for an extension until 10 April 2008 to vacate voluntarily, which she signed against her will. The sheriff denied the 12 February visit and the threats, and claimed he entered with the residents' permission and was civil throughout.

Issues

• Whether or not the present administrative complaint is barred by res judicata in view of the Court's earlier dismissal of another complaint by Quilo against the same sheriff and the trial judge.
• Whether or not Sheriff Jundarino is administratively liable for his conduct in serving the writ of execution and the notice to vacate and demolish.

Applicable Provisions

The decision resolves the case on the doctrine of res judicata and on the settled rule that denial is a weak defense. The Court states the requisites of res judicata as follows:

The requisites of res judicata are: (1) there must be a former final judgment rendered on the merits; (2) the court must have had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (3) there must be identity of parties, subject matters and causes of action between the first and second actions.

This governs whether the earlier dismissal of Quilo's complaint against the judge and the sheriff bars the present complaint against the sheriff alone.

On the nature of the earlier dismissal, the Court explains the distinction between judicial and administrative questions:

Questions judicial in nature ought to be threshed out in a judicial proceeding and definitely not in an administrative one. An administrative complaint is not a valid substitute for a judicial action.

This explains why the earlier complaint was dismissed and why the present one may proceed.

On the sheriff's defense, the Court applies the rule on denial:

It is settled that denial is inherently a weak defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving and is with nil evidentiary value.

This disposes of the sheriff's bare denials of the alleged threats and coercion.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there is no res judicata. The requisites are not all present because there is no identity of causes of action between the two complaints. The earlier complaint attacked the refusal to quash the writ and the persistence in implementing it, and was dismissed because it raised questions judicial in nature. The present complaint assails the sheriff's abrasive words and actions during his visits to Quilo's residence on 12 February 2008 and 27 March 2008. Whether the sheriff exercised proper decorum and followed established procedure is an administrative matter within the Court's disciplinary authority.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that the sheriff is guilty of simple misconduct. His defense was mere denial, which the Court held to be inherently weak and self-serving absent strong evidence of non-culpability.

Doctrine

First, res judicata requires a former final judgment on the merits, jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, and identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Absent identity of causes of action, the bar does not attach.

Second, questions judicial in nature must be raised in a judicial proceeding; an administrative complaint is not a valid substitute for a judicial action. But a complaint directed at a sheriff's decorum and procedure in executing a writ is administrative in nature and may be decided by the Supreme Court in its disciplinary authority over judicial employees.

Third, denial is inherently a weak defense; to be believed it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability, otherwise it is self-serving and has no evidentiary value.

Disposition

The Court found Sheriff Jundarino guilty of simple misconduct and imposed a fine equivalent to three months of his salary, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the line that an administrative complaint is not a valid substitute for a judicial action, but a sheriff's misconduct in executing a writ is itself an administrative matter. Examiners use this case to test res judicata and the distinction between judicial and administrative questions in the discipline of court personnel.