A.M. No. R-510-P. November 13, 1987
APOLINARIO D. SARIGUMBA, PETITIONER, VS. DEPUTY SHERIFF EUGENIO B. PASOK, RESPONDENT.
PER CURIAM:
On 4 December 1984,
Mercur Export Corporation, Sonia Tolopia,
Hans Birzele, Cesar Soliven,
Arturo Tolopia and Grace Tolopia
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch
142, Makati,
Metro Manila, a complaint against Apolinario D. Sarigumba, for damages with a prayer for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction, docketed therein as Civil Case No. 9172.
The complaint[1]
alleges, inter alia, that the individual
plaintiffs and defendant are all stockholders and directors of Mercur Export Corporation (MERCUR for short); that due to
the worsening economic ills of the country, all of the directors of MERCUR,
with the exception of defendant, arrived at a consensus that MERCUR’s factories at Calaca-an, Plaridel, Misamis Occidental, be
leased out to an interested party so that the corporation could liquidate on time
its maturing liabilities which have reached the amount of P3.3M.
The complaint further alleges that when the representatives of
the prospective lessee, accompanied by MERCUR’s own
representative, went to the factories in Calaca-an, Plaridel, Misamis Occidental on
22 November 1984, the defendant, with the use of threats and intimidation,
barred or prevented them from entering MERCUR’s
premises without any justifiable reason and warned them that they could enter
the company’s factories and premises only “over his (my) dead body”; that defendant’s
acts and posture are inimical to the business operations of MERCUR and
injurious to the rights of plaintiffs-directors-stockholders, and that his acts
are designed to enhance and promote his malicious and vicious intention to
operate MERCUR’s factories and illegally appropriate
its properties; that as a consequence
of defendant’s unlawful and malicious acts, plaintiffs suffered or stand to
suffer pecuniary damages estimated at P200,000.00
a month, which amount fairly represents the monthly income to be derived from the use of said factories.
Acting upon the
complaint, the Pairing Judge, Judge Zoilo C. Aguinaldo, presiding Judge of Branch 143, RTC of Makati[2], issued on 7 December 1984 an order[3] granting the plaintiffs’ prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, and on 15
January 1985, issued
the writ[4].
However, upon motion of the plaintiffs[5], Judge Aguinaldo
issued on 21 January 1985 an order amending the writ of preliminary
injunction and issued on the same date the Amended Writ of Preliminary
Injunction[6], the pertinent portion of which reads, as
follows:
“In view of the
foregoing, you, the said defendant, and all your attorneys, representatives,
agents, and any other person assisting you are hereby ordered (a) to deliver to
the plaintiffs and/or their representatives all the keys of the factories of
the plaintiff Mercur Export Corporation which are the
banana chips and charcoal factories and their premises located at Calacaan,
Plaridel, Misamis
Occidental, and all of their motor vehicles consisting of two (2) Ford Fieras and two (2) trucks, one (1) Ford and one (1) Izusu; and to deliver to them other personal properties consisting of about 800 cartons of banana chips, several bags of refined sugar, several
drums/cans of coconut oil, banana flavor, 2-way radio and other personal
properties which may be found in the said premises; (b) to discontinue or to
refrain from committing or causing to be committed, personally or through
another, any and all acts and deeds that are inimical or damaging to the
plaintiff Mercur Export Corporation and its business
operations until further orders of the court”.
On 29 January 1985,
Deputy and Special Sheriff Silvino R. Pastrana, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 142, the Sheriff’s Return[7], dated 28 January 1985, stating among others, that on 23
January 1985, he served the summons together with the complaint as well as the order dated 21 January 1985 and the Writ of Preliminary
Injunction of even date, upon the person of the defendant Apolinario
D. Sarigumba at the gate of the factories in question
but he refused “to sign receipt thereof”; that the gate to the
factories was padlocked and defendant refused to have it opened, and that he
similarly refused to deliver the personal property/ties which he is enjoined to
deliver to the plaintiffs.
As a result thereof, plaintiffs filed with the court a quo, an “Ex-parte motion to
authorize Deputy Sheriff to Force Open Premises”[8],
dated 28 January 1985, which Pairing Judge, Zoilo C.
Aguinaldo, granted in his order[9],
dated 4 February 1985. Plaintiffs filed
also a motion, dated 30 January 1985, to commission or
authorize the sheriff of Ozamis
City or any of his deputies to
enforce the writ of preliminary injunction, which was likewise granted by Judge
Zoilo C. Aguinaldo in his
order[10],
dated 31 January 1985.
Meanwhile, on 30 January 1985, defendant Apolinario
D. Sarigumba, filed with the trial court, a motion to dismiss[11]
the complaint on the ground, among others, that the court a quo has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action or
suit and that jurisdiction thereof pertains to the Securities and Exchange
Commission under PD No. 902-A.
Plaintiffs opposed the motion[12]. Thereafter,
defendant Apolinario Sarigumba
filed a reply[13] to plaintiff’s opposition, after
which, the trial court, now presided by Judge Felintrye
G. Saulog[14], issued an order[15], dated 28 February 1985, dismissing the
plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
In the meantime, on 25
February 1985, the Deputy Sheriff of Ozamis City,
Eugenio Pasok, herein
respondent, who was commissioned or authorized by Judge Zoilo
C. Aguinaldo to enforce the writ of preliminary
injunction, implemented the writ. His
1st Indorsement[16], dated 28 February 1985, reads as follows:
“Respectfully returned to the Honorable Pairing Judge, Zoilo Aguinaldo, National Capital
Judicial Region, Branch CXLII (142), Makati, Metro
Manila, the herein attached Court Order dated February 4, 1985 duly issued in
the above-entitled case with the following actions taken thereon, to wit:
“Upon receipt of said Order and the amended writ of
preliminary injunction and related orders on February 25, 1985, immediate services were effected by proceeding to the premises of Plaintiff Mercur Export Corp., situated at Calaca-an,
Plaridel, Mis. Occidental. The undersigned
Sheriff, together with Plaintiffs Sonia Tolopia and
Grace Tolopia, Atty. Carmelito
Sumile, Phil. Constabulary members of Mis. Occ., Integrated National Police of Plaridel,
Mis. Occ., and some
hired laborers witnessed the enforcement and/or implementation of the subject
order and writ of that Court.
“Arriving thereat, the undersigned Sheriff did his best to
contact defendant Apolinario D. Sarigumba,
but it was to no avail as he was out of town during that time. Subsequently, the act of entering the Mercur Export Corporation’s premises was accomplished by
destroying the padlock of the factory’s gate, and while inside the plaintiffs’
compound, the whole factory was opened as the keys were voluntarily turned over
to Ms. Sonia Tolopia by Mr. Luis Gagarino
who was then the alleged factory supervisor working this time for Sarigumba. Also,
about twelve (12) people were inside the premises working for Sarigumba who, according to them, had been operating the
plant. Immediately, the inventory of all
the properties inside the factory was conducted, and after the inventory was
finished, delivery of the same and the possession of the plants and other
equipment and machineries to plaintiff Sonia Tolopia
was effected. Copy of the said Inventory
is hereto attached to form part of this return.
“Defendant Apolinario Sarigumba did every foul and illegal means, such as harrassing plaintiff’s representatives and even undersigned
Sheriff with the end in view of blocking the implementation and defeating the
purposes of the court order/writ. He
even filed “roberry” cases against the
undersigned and against everyone
(including the Provincial Commander and Chief of Police) who took part in the
implementation thereof. Unfortunately
for him, Sarigumba is not the owner of the factories
but Plaintiff Mercur Export Corporation.
“The physical turn-over in favor of plaintiffs of the
possession of the plaintiff’s (sic) company plants, machineries and equipment
has been effected as per above inventory attached hereto. Since other personal properties owned by the
company are still in the possession of A. Sarigumba
who still refuses to comply with the court order/writ, the undersigned will
exert his best efforts to retrieve them to fully comply with said
orders/writ”.
On 28 March 1985,
defendant Apolinario D. Sarigumba,
filed with the Office of the Court Administrator, a complaint against Judge Zoilo C. Aguinaldo, charging him
with gross ignorance of the law and abusive exercise of judicial authority,
docketed as Administrative Matter No. R-340-RTJ. The complaint, however, was dismissed on 19 March 1987, the resignation of Judge Aguinaldo having been accepted by the President and there
being no compelling reason for further proceeding
with the investigation of the complaint.
On 2 April 1985,
defendant Apolinario D. Sarigumba
likewise filed with the Office of the Court Administrator, a complaint
against Deputy Sheriff Eugenio B. Pasok,
charging him with ignorance of the law and for arrogating unto himself powers not accorded him as sheriff, docketed as
Administrative Matter No. R-510-P. After respondent Deputy Sheriff had filed his
comment, the Court referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator
for report and recommendation. The
Report reads as follows:
“Mr. Apolinario D. Sarigumba of Plaridel, Misamis Occidental, charged Mr. Eugenio
D. Pasok, Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 15, Ozamis
City, of alleged ignorance of the
law and arrogating unto himself powers not accorded to him as sheriff.
“Complainant alleged that the infractions committed by
respondent sheriff consist of the following:
(1) On February 25, 1985, respondent enforced a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction dated February 4, 1985, issued by the Regional Trial Court of Makati, in Calaca-an, Plaridel, Misamis Occidental; (2)
he acknowledged in his Return submitted to the Provincial Commander that he has
fully executed the Writ, which was corroborated by Plaintiffs’ affidavit that
respondent and his party took over possession of the company’s factories and
properties; (3) on February 26, 1985, in the company of Plaintiffs’ counsels
and other persons, respondent brought out things from the premises of Deo’s Food, Inc., and hauled them to the container yard of
William Lines at Ozamis City; (4) on March 5, 1985,
despite being furnished a copy of the order of dismissal of the case,
respondent not only shipped but also consigned the goods, equipment, etc. to
himself, which two German Nationals, German Birzele
and Diestrich Heildebrandt,
paid and collected; and (5) the court order of January 31, 1985, authorizing
respondent to enforce the Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated January 21,
1985, does not exist nor appear in the court record, based on the certification
of the Branch Clerk of that court.
“Respondent by way of comment to the complaint (1) admitted
that a Writ
of Preliminary Injunction was issued by the Regional Trial Court of Makati, which he
enforced on February 25, 1985, in Calaca-an, Plaridel, Misamis Occidental, but
denied that the date of the Writ is February
4, 1985, inviting attention to complainant’s Exhibit “A”, which is
the copy of the writ dated January 21, 1985; (2) denied that the
letter he sent to the Provincial Commander is the Sheriff’s Return, but simply
a notification on the status and progress of the enforcement of the Writ, which
was not fully executed; (3) denied that on February 26, 1985,
together with Plaintiff’s counsels
and other persons, he brought
out things from the premises of Deo’s Food, Inc., and hauled them to the container yard of Willaim
Lines, Inc., at Ozamis City, because on said date he
ceased to have possession and responsibility over the properties, in view of
the fact that on February 25, 1985 he turned over said properties to the
Plaintiffs, through Ms. Sonia Tolopia, in the presence of Plaintiffs’ counsels and other
witnesses; (4) denied that he was furnished a copy of the order of dismissal of
the case, contending that an examination of complainant’s Exhibit
“D”, which is a copy of said order, will show that there was no proof
of service nor was there any notation to that effect on the face of the order,
but admitted that he was the shipper of the goods, mainly in due consideration
to the request of William Lines, Inc., and the Plaintiffs, who not only paid
all fees and charges but also has the exclusive control and direction of the
shipment; and (5) for lack of sufficient knowledge and information to form a
belief as to the truth of the contents of the Branch Clerk’s certification, he
specifically denied the same.
“There is no truth to the allegation that the order dated
January 31, 1985 is non-existent In a
certification dated June 4, 1987 (p. 52, rollo), the
Branch Clerk of Court stated that there was indeed an order issued on that date
and such order was not in the
records of Civil Case No. 9172 as he earlier certified (p. 17, rollo) but was found later attached
to the records of CA G.R. No. S.P. – 05977 (Mercur Export
Corporation, et al. v. Saulog, et al.) when the
plaintiff filed a petition for mandamus
with preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals.
“The actuation of respondent Deputy Sheriff is highly
irregular in this case for the following reasons:
a) Respondent’s execution
of the writ of preliminary injunction runs counter to B.P. 129 (Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1981) and the
Interim Rules of January 11, 1983 Implementing B.P. 129 which states that a
writ of preliminary injunction issued by a regional trial court may be enforced only in any part of the
region. As an officer of the
court, respondent ought to have known this provision. Besides, Section 2, Rule 58 of the Rules of
Court* on injunction has been interpreted by this Court in
Cudiamat v. Torres (22 SCRA 695, 698) to be
coextensive with the territorial boundaries of the province or district in
which the said court sits. Upon receipt
of the order dated January 31, 1985 authorizing the sheriff of Ozamis City or any of his deputies to enforce the writ of
preliminary injunction of January 21, 1985, respondent Deputy Sheriff should
have gone to the Executive Judge or the Clerk of Court for clearance to
implement the writ in Ozamis City. This procedure would have been the proper
thing to do under the circumstances.
“b) Respondent’s
compliance with the request of the plaintiffs to ship the personal properties
taken under the writ of preliminary injunction to Manila in his name was done
in excess of his authority as a sheriff.
Such act is not one of those enumerated in the writ of injunction of January 21, 1985. Considering this fact and notwithstanding the
notation made by the Clerk of Court of the RTC, Branch 15, respondent ought to
have secured a
clearance from the Executive Judge or the issuing Judge to transport the
said personal items.
“All the above precautions should have been taken by the
respondent because sheriffs are bound virtute offici to bring to the discharge of his
duties that prudence, caution and attention which
careful men usually exercise in the management of their own affairs. (Penalosa
v. Viscaya, Jr., 84 SCRA 298, 300). Respondent’s complete unawareness/disregard
of the provisions of B.P. 129, the Interim Rules of 1983 and the limitations of
his authority as sheriff can not be dismissed lightly. As an officer of the Court whose duties form
an integral part of the administration of justice, respondent should be the
first person to know and comprehend the law he is set to enforce. However, considering that this is respondent’s
first offense in his fifteen (15) years of service in the judiciary, and that
no malice or bad faith attended the implementation of the writ of preliminary
injunction as borne by the records, a penalty
of fine equivalent to one (1) month’s salary would be an appropriate
chastisement for respondent”.
It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance
warranting removal from office of an officer, must have a direct relation to
and be connected with the performance of official duties, amounting either to
maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the
duties of the office[17].
Respondent’s enforcement in Calaca-an, Misamis Occidental of the writ of preliminary injunction
issued by the RTC in Makati was irregular, to say the least, even if there was an order from
said Makati Court authorizing respondent to enforce
the writ. As an officer of the Court,
respondent ought to have known that a writ of preliminary injunction issued by
a Regional Trial Court may be enforced only within its region. Moreover, prudence dictated that respondent
should have first cleared with the Executive Judge or the Clerk of Court in Ozamis City
whether he had the authority to implement in Misamis
Occidental the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC in Makati. This he failed to do, without any
explanation.
Respondent’s act of shipping, on 5 March 1985, from Ozamis City to Manila, in his name, the personal properties taken under the writ of
preliminary injunction[18],
upon request of the plaintiffs and
William Lines, Inc., appears to have been done in connection with the
performance of his official duties as special sheriff to enforce the writ of
preliminary injunction, but the act was not authorized or required by law, the rules
or the writ itself. It should be noted
that respondent Deputy Sheriff executed or enforced the writ of preliminary
injunction on 25 February 1985, and, immediately thereafter, turned over
the possession of the personal properties to the plaintiffs. As of that date, his duties or functions
(apart from the irregularity in their performance) as special sheriff, to
enforce the writ of preliminary injunction, ceased. He had no business to ship to the plaintiffs
in Manila, in his own name, the properties that he had
already turned over to the plaintiffs.
Clearly, therefore, the shipping of the personal properties to Manila by
respondent Deputy Sheriff is an uncalled for “extra service” to the
plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 9172. It
gives rise to the reasonable conclusion that respondent went out of his way to
unduly favor the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 9172 particularly when related to
the fact that he implemented the writ of preliminary injunction issued in said
case, in excess of, or beyond his authority.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the respondent
from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice
to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including
government owned or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras,
Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin,
Sarmiento, and
Cortes, JJ., concur.
[1]
Record, AM No. R-340-RTJ, p. 6
[2]
Branch 142, Regional Trial Court of Makati, was vacant at the time. (Rollo, AM
No. R-340-RTJ, pp. 63-67).
[3]
Rollo, AM No. R-340-RTJ, p. 17
[4]
Id., p. 20
[5]
Id., p. 22
[6]
Id., pp. 24, 26; Rollo, AM No. R-510-P, p. 3
[7]
Rollo, AM No. R-340-RTJ, p. 29
[8]
Rollo, AM No. R-340-RTJ, p. 30
[9]
Id., p. 52
[10]
Id., p. 103; Rollo, AM No. R-340-P, p. 43
[11]
Id., p. 32
[12]
Rollo, AM No. R-340-RTJ, p. 41
[13]
Id., p. 54
[14]
Assigned to Branch 142 on 7 February 1985 (Rollo,
AM No. R-340-RTJ, p. 63)
[15]
Rollo, AM No. R-340-RTJ, p.
60; Rollo, AM No. R-510-P, p. 8
[16]
Id., p. 104; Rollo,
AM No. R-510-P, p. 46
* Section 2, Rule 58, Rules
of Court provides:
“Sec. 2.
Who may grant preliminary injuction. - A preliminary injunction may be granted by the judge of any
court in which the action is pending, or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals
or of the Supreme Court. It may also be
granted by the Judge of a Court of First Instance in any action pending in an
inferior court within his district”.
[17]
Amosco vs. Magro, AM
No. 439-MR, 20 September 1976; 73 SCRA 107; Tenza vs.
Espinelli, AM No. P-2095, 23 October 1981, 108 SCRA
154
[18]
Rollo, AM No. R-510-P, p. 11