AM P 05 2059; (August, 2005) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-05-2059. August 19, 2005. ATTY. AUDIE C. ARNADO, Complainant, vs. EDILBERTO R. SUARIN, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 8, Cebu City, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Atty. Audie C. Arnado charged respondent Sheriff Edilberto R. Suarin with Serious Misconduct, Oppression, Harassment, and Unethical Conduct. Arnado alleged that Suarin prematurely implemented a writ of execution in an ejectment case by banging on his gate, shouting, creating a public scandal, and posting notices, causing him humiliation. The ejectment judgment against Arnado and his spouse had become final and executory as early as December 1999.
Sheriff Suarin, in his defense, asserted he was merely performing his ministerial duty to implement a final court order. He denied the allegations, stating he used the buzger and followed instructions from Arnado’s employees to slip notices under the gate when the spouses were purportedly absent. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially recommended dismissing the complaint against Suarin and requiring Arnado to explain why he should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous complaint.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Audie C. Arnado should be administratively sanctioned for filing a groundless complaint against Sheriff Edilberto R. Suarin.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Arnado is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the OCA’s findings and imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for filing a groundless suit. The Court emphasized that in administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations by substantial evidence, akin to the quantum in criminal cases. Arnado failed to meet this burden.
He provided no specific details, dates, or witnesses to substantiate his claims against the sheriff. His allegations were contradicted by the procedural history showing that the ejectment judgment was final and that Arnado had employed various legal maneuvers to delay execution for years. Sheriff Suarin was merely executing a lawful court order. The Court found the complaint was filed in bad faith, especially as it followed closely the dismissal of a similar administrative case Arnado had filed against the presiding judge. While the right to litigate is protected, it must be exercised in good faith. Lawyers, as officers of the court, have a duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice and must not misuse judicial processes to harass parties. The fine serves as a sanction for this transgression.