FELBET’S TIMBER, INC. AND FELIX J. DOMINGO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. GLICERIO LUMUTHANG AND ANTONIO LETADA, RESPONDENTS.

Administrative complaint against Glicerio
Lumuthang and Antonio Letada as deputy sheriffs of the Court of First Instance
of Davao del Norte at Tagum.

The verified complaint dated November 24, 1978, charged the respondents of oppression,
misconduct and discourtesy in the enforcement of the writ of execution issued
against Felbet’s Timber, Inc. by the National Labor Relations Commission,
Regional Office No. XI at Davao City in NLRC
Cases No. 945-MC-XI-78 and No. 946- MC-XI-78.

On September
4, 1978, the National
Labor Relations Commission, Region XI, rendered a decision against Felbet’s
Timber, Inc. in the two aforementioned cases, for the total amount of P117,414.65 plus attorney’s fees.  Accordingly, a writ of execution was issued
by the Labor Arbiter (Region XI) on November 7, 1978.

Felbet’s Timber, Inc.
appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission at Manila.  On
its urgent petition, the NLRC issued a resolution en banc dated November
17, 1978, enjoining
the execution of the decision and the corresponding writ of execution.

The resolution of November
17, 1978, was not,
however, served upon the respondent sheriffs until November 20, 1978, a day after they had actually levied upon
and seized some properties of the complainants.

According to the
complainants, in the afternoon of November 18, 1978, their counsel, Atty. Blasito Angeles
received information from Liwanag Aguirre, Administrative Assistant of NLRC,
Region XI, regarding which, Atty. Angeles addressed
the following letter dated November 18, 1978, to respondent Glicerio Lumuthang.

“J. S. Carriedo
Bldg.,

76-F, Magallanes
St.,

Davao
City

November 18, 1978

The Sheriff of Davao

(Attn: Dep. Sheriff
Lumuthang)

Tagum, Davao

Re: Writ of
Execution in NLRC Cases

Nos. 946 & 945, MC-XI-78 –

entitled
‘Avila Et Al vs. Felbet’s

Timber, Inc., Et Al’

Sirs:

We are informed over the phone by Mr. Aguirre of the NLRC, Regional
Office No. XI, Davao City, that pursuant to the telephone conversation with
NLRC Executive Director Bolisay, the NLRC shall issue a temporary restraining
order, to restrain the im­plementation of the writ of execution issued by the
NLRC, Regional Office No. XI. Therefore, Mr. Aguirre requested me to contact
you, and to advise you to immediately see Mr. Aguirre on the above-cited
matter.  I am therefore now relaying said
request of Mr. Aguirre to you, with the hope that you can immediately see him
for instructions.

In the meantime, and since we are approaching the week-end, or
Sunday, it is hoped and requested that you will defer further action on the
said writ of execution, until you receive any official advise or instructions
from Mr. Aguirre, of the NLRC Regional Branch No. XI, Davao City, which
issued the writ of execution now in your hands.

Thank you for your prompt attention hereto.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) BLASITO E. ANGELES

Counsel for
respondents

Felbet’s Timber, Inc.,
et al.”

The foregoing letter was
delivered to respondent Lumuthang on November P9,1978, by Alfredo Escandor, a
representative of the com­plainants, who found Lumuthang and Letada together
with Atty. Lucilo Regis (counsel for the claimants in the above-mentioned NLRC
cases) at the complainants’ logging compound in Maco, Davao del Norte.  At that time the respondents were actually in
the process of levying on the properties of the complainants at the compound.

Notwithstanding
Escandor’s plea for suspension of the levy and assurance that measures will be
taken so that respondents could immediately communicate with Liwanag Aguirre to
verify the report contained in the letter, the respondents continued the
seizure of the complainants’ properties, consisting of 5 motor vehicles and
other personal properties.

The complainants’ properties were thus taken from its logging compound
at Maco, Davao del Norte, and brought to the Free Farmers Federation compound
at Fabe Subdivision, Tagum, Davao del Norte.

The next day, November
20, 1978, the NLRC Regional Office received and in turn served upon
the respondents a copy of the NLRC resolution en banc of November 17, 1978, containing the
restraining order.

On the same day, complainants obtained the return of the
properties seized by the respondents.

The complainants, thus,
allege that with obvious partiality and grave abuse of discretion amounting to
grave misconduct, respondent sheriffs elected to rely upon the advice of Atty.
Regis, and with obvious discourtesy in the performance of their official duty,
ignored and unceremoniously rebuffed or disregarded the information contained
in the letter.  It is further alleged
that the writ of execution had been with the respondents from November 8 to 19,
1978, without serving the same; that no prejudice could have resulted if the
respondents had suspended the levy on November 19, 1978, which was actually a
Sunday, until they could verify the contents of Atty. Angeles’ letter; and that
in making the levy, the respondents were motivated by malice and intent to
oppress, harass, embarrass and besmirch the personal, social and business
reputation of the complainants.

The gist of the
respondents’ joint comment (dated February 22, 1979), is that they could not
have relied merely on the letter of Atty. Angeles, who being counsel for the
complainants could not have been “neutral or impartial”.  No restraining order was presented to them, they
claim; and neither was Liwanag Aguirre presented to explain the matter.

They also said that they had to serve the writ of execution on
the complainants on Sunday, November
19, 1978, because that was the only day of the week when
complainants’ motor vehicles could be found at their compound.  They maintain that they only followed an
order from a proper authority and conducted the levy according to law.

After due investigation, Executive Judge Alfredo Lagamon, Court
of First Instance at Tagum, Davao del Norte, submitted an investigation report
dated February 24, 1981, which states that:

“The records of the case was received
on January 21, 1981.  The first hearing was scheduled on February 3, 1981 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon.  Complainant through counsel,
filed an urgent motion for transfer of hearing on February 3, 1981. 
Said motion was granted and trial was re-scheduled and set for hearing
on February 10, 1981 at 8:30 in the morning.

“On February 10, 1981,
the day of the hearing, complainant and his lawyer, Atty. Blasito E. Angeles
appeared in Court and manifested that they are ready for trial.  The respondents also appeared with their
lawyer, Atty. Pedro C. Buhion and informed the Court that they are also ready
for trial.

“The Court informed the parties that the hearing of the case
shall be conducted in chambers because the proceedings are confidential.  While the complainant and the respondents
were in chambers together with their lawyers, they jointly prayed for a recess
and after said recess, complainant through counsel informed the Court that they
are not submitting any testimonial evidence but would like the Court to
appreciate their complaint on the basis of the documentary evidence annexed to
the complaint.  The respondents through counsel, also made the same manifestations.  In effect, the parties have come to an
amicable settlement after the respondents explained to the complainant their
positions.

“There are issues however, which still must be considered, supported
by documentary evidence and admitted by the respondents, as follows:

a)      That on November 17, 1978, the NLRC en banc
approved a resolution enjoining among others the respondents from executing or
enforcing the writ of execution in question;

b)      That Atty. Blasito E.
Angeles, counsel for the complainant, sent a letter to the respondent, Glicerio
Lumuthang, requesting him to confer with Mr. Aguirre, NLRC Regional Office XI,
Davao City, about a temporary restraining order issued by the NLRC and requesting
further that no further action on the writ of execution shall be made until
official advice or instruction shall have been received from Mr. Aguirre;

c)      Respondents admitted
these facts in their answer but since no copy of the restraining order was shown
to respondent Glicerio Lumuthang, he opted to continue with the levy,
completely disregarding the request of Atty. Blasito E. Angeles, counsel for
the complainant.

“It is the opinion of the undersigned that respondent Deputy
Sheriff Glicerio Lumuthang should not have proceeded
with the execution.  He could have easily
checked with the NLRC, Regional Office at Davao
City and verify if indeed there was
a temporary restraining order.  A delay
of a few hours could not have prejudiced the prevailing parties.  For this act of indiscretion, the undersigned
believes that respondent Lumuthang should be given a warning to be more prudent
in the future.

“There seems to be no evidence against respondent Antonio
Letada.  He only assisted in the
execution.  The decision to proceed with
the levy was the sole responsibility of respondent Glicerio Lumuthang.

We agree with the investigating judge that Lumuthang is indeed
culpable but we cannot accept his recommendation that said respondent be given
a mere warning.

In determining the
appropriate penalty to be meted to Lumuthang, it is pertinent to mention the
decision and resolution rendered by Us in other
administrative cases involving said respondent. 
In Administrative Matter No. P-1549, entitled
“Raul C. Briz versus Deputy Sheriffs Faustino Encinares, Jr., and Glicerio
Lumuthang, etc.”, We found the respondents guilty of incompetence and
grave abuse of authority amounting to oppression and grave misconduct and meted
the penalty of suspension from office for one month without pay with stern
warning that repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with
more severely.  And in Administrative
Matter No. 1264-MJ, entitled “Glicerio Lumuthang versus Judge Juanito de
Leon, etc.”, We resolved to dismiss the complaint against the judge for failure
of the complainant to prosecute the case and We further resolved to require the
complainant Glicerio Lumuthang to show cause why he should not be disciplinary
dealt with or held in contempt for filing a false or groundless complaint and
failing to appear and prosecute.

In view of the recidivism
of respondent Lumuthang, he deserves a severe penalty.  On the other hand, We
agree with the investigating judge that respondent Antonio Letada is
blameless.

WHEREFORE, for repeated misconduct in office,
respondent Deputy Sheriff Glicerio Lumuthang is hereby considered resigned from
the service effective upon receipt of this decision with prejudice to
reinstatement.  The other respondent,
Deputy Sheriff Antonio Letada, is hereby absolved from the complaint.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and De Castro, JJ., concur.