LUMEN POLICARPIO, CONCORDIA GLADYS YSMAEL, RICARDO POLICARPIO RENTAO, JOSE POLICARPIO AND LEONILA POLICARPIO, PETITIONERS, VS. GALLARDO TOLENTINO, DEPUTY SHERIFF AND AUGUSTO CAS…

On October 21, 1991,
Attorney Lumen Policarpio, Concordia Gladys Ysmael, Ricardo Policarpio Rentao, Jose Policarpio and Leonila Policarpio filed an
administrative complaint charging respondents Gallardo C. Tolentino,
deputy sheriff of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court
of Malabon, Metro Manila, and Attorney Augusto D. Castro, Jr., Clerk of Court and Ex-Oficio Sheriff of the same court, with grave abuse of
authority, serious misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service, in connection with their actuations in Civil Case No. R-83-19048
(41518) entitled, “Philippine Trust Company vs. Lumen Policarpio,
et al.,” of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court of Manila.

As set out in the resolution of this Court dated September 28, 1988 in G.R. No. 81142
entitled, “Lumen Policarpio vs. Justice Lorna Lombos-Dela Fuente, et.
al.,” the background facts of this case are:

Sometime in 1958, Attorney Lumen Policarpio
borrowed P300,000.00 from PHILTRUST. As security for
the loan, her parents mortgaged to PHILTRUST some properties in Navotas, Rizal. For failure of
the debtors to pay the loan when due, the bank commenced foreclosure proceedings
in 1963. Eventually, as highest bidder at the public sale, the bank
consolidated its ownership over the mortgaged properties. A new title was
issued in its name on March 13, 1972.

Sometime in 1974, the Policarpio
residence which stood on the foreclosed property was destroyed by a typhoon.
Apparently, Lumen Policarpio had not vacated it, for
she rebuilt it in January 1975. In 1980, the bank sold the property to Alto
Industrial Enterprises, Inc. On August
28, 1989, a writ of possession was issued by Judge Castaneda of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 17, whom Lumen Policarpio
sought to disqualify. The case was raffled to Branch 12 presided over by Judge Procoro J. Donato, who issued a
second alias writ of possession on October 15, 1990. It was given to respondent
deputy sheriff Gallardo Tolentino for implementation.
Attorney Policarpio, et al. challenged Judge Donato’s order in the Court of Appeals but without success.
Her petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on March 21, 1991. Her petition for review of the
Appellate Court’s decision was likewise dismissed by the Supreme Court.

On November 12, 1990,
Deputy Sheriff Tolentino filed in court a motion for
approval of his estimate of expenses for the implementation of the writ of
possession and prayed that the plaintiff be ordered to deposit the amount with
the sheriff. The court, however, deferred action on Tolentino’s
motion until after the hearing on December
6, 1990 of Policarpio’s motion for
reconsideration. Without waiting for the court’s action on his motion, Tolentino proceeded to implement the alias writ of
possession on November 14, 1990.

On November 29, 1990,
Judge Donato found Tolentino
guilty of indirect contempt for his undue haste in implementing the alias writ
of possession without waiting for the court’s approval of his estimate of
expenses for the implementation of said writ.

On October 4, 1991,
Tolentino filed with the Executive Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Metro Manila, a
sheriff’s Return and Manifestation seeking authority to place certain personal
property of the complainants in a bonded warehouse. He also asked the court to
approve his bill of expenses for moving the complainants’ property from the
premises. On October 7, 1991,
Executive Judge Cabigao issued the order prayed for.

On October 14, 1991, acting by virtue of the resolution of the
Supreme Court dated August 28, 1991 in the case of “Simeon Policarpio, et al. vs. CA, G.R. No. 97963, as well as the
October 7, 1991 order of Judge Cabigao, deputy sheriff
Gallardo Tolentino, with the knowledge and approval
of clerk of court Attorney Augusto D. Castro, and
aided by PHILTRUST’s lawyer and a support force of
thirty (30) bank employees, forcibly opened the house of the complainants,
ransacked the same, removed all the personal property therein, and transferred
them to an undisclosed bonded warehouse in Pandacan;
Metro Manila.

The next day, October
15, 1991, Judge Cabigao recalled and set
aside his October 7, 1991
order for fear that it might be misinterpreted as an assumption of jurisdiction
over the case by the Regional Trial Court of Malabon.

Complainants filed this administrative complaint against the
respondents, alleging that the enforcement of the writ of possession by
breaking into the Policarpio home which was not even
“included in the mortgage with the Philtrust”
(p. 2, Rollo), was unlawful because the Regional
Trial Court of Malabon had no jurisdiction over the
case. Despite that, Tolentino filed his Return and
Manifestation in the Regional Trial Court of Malabon.
Complainants filed robbery charges against the respondents.

There is no doubt that the implementation of the writ of
possession on October 14, 1991
by the respondents was premature and irregular. It was carried out with undue
haste and in an oppressive manner, without awaiting the court’s action on
respondent sheriff’s motion for approval of his estimated expenses. As a matter
of fact, for that misconduct, Tolentino was found
guilty of indirect contempt by Judge Donato of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 12.

WHEREFORE, as
recommended by the Court Administrator, respondents Gallardo C. Tolentino and Attorney Augusto
Castro are found guilty of abuse of authority and serious misconduct and are
each ordered to pay a fine of TWO THOUSAND (P2,000.00) PESOS for having
arbitrarily and oppressively disregarded procedural rules in implementing the
writ of possession on the property of the herein complainants. They are warned
that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with
more severely and they are admonished to henceforth exercise utmost care and
prudence in the performance of their duties.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz and
Quiason, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., No part. Was Court Administrator when complainant
Atty. Lumen Policarpio initially complained against respondents.