G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-10-2835; June 8, 2011
Case Title: Development Bank of the Philippines, represented by Atty. Benilda A. Tejada, Chief Legal Counsel, Complainant, vs. Clerk of Court VII Atty. Jeoffrey S. Joaquino, Office of the Clerk of Court, and Sheriff IV Constancio V. Alimurung, Branch 18, both of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Respondents.

FACTS

The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) filed an administrative complaint against Clerk of Court VII Atty. Jeoffrey S. Joaquino and Sheriff IV Constancio V. Alimurung. The complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. CEB-29383, where a Partial Summary Judgment was rendered against DBP on September 6, 2006. DBP filed a Notice of Appeal. The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for execution pending appeal on January 29, 2007, and Joaquino issued a Writ of Execution on March 21, 2007. DBP challenged this via a Petition for Certiorari. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated July 20, 2007, annulled and set aside the orders granting execution pending appeal and all subsequent writs and processes for their implementation. Meanwhile, the trial court, in an Order dated March 6, 2008, dismissed DBP’s notice of appeal, declared the Partial Summary Judgment final and executory, and directed the issuance of a writ of execution. Based on this March 6, 2008 Order, respondent Joaquino issued another Writ of Execution on March 17, 2008. Respondent Sheriff Alimurung served this writ and proceeded with notices of sheriff’s sale, including an auction on April 8, 2008, despite DBP’s objections that the judgment was not yet final. DBP filed a Petition for Injunction with the Court of Appeals to stop the enforcement.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Jeoffrey S. Joaquino, Clerk of Court, is administratively liable for issuing the Writ of Execution dated March 17, 2008.

RULING

Yes, respondent Joaquino is administratively liable, but the penalty is modified. The Court found Joaquino guilty of gross ignorance of the Rules and dereliction of duty. The March 6, 2008 Order of the trial court, which directed the issuance of the writ, was issued after the Court of Appeals had already nullified the prior orders granting execution. The Court of Appeals’ July 20, 2007 Decision had become final and executory. Therefore, the trial court’s March 6, 2008 Order was issued without jurisdiction and was void. A void order cannot be the source of any right or duty. Joaquino, as a clerk of court, had the ministerial duty to issue the writ pursuant to a valid order. By issuing the writ based on a void order, he exhibited gross ignorance of the law. The Court initially imposed a penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay. Upon Joaquino’s motion for reconsideration, and based on comparative penalties in analogous cases (such as Separa v. Atty. Maceda), the Court modified the penalty out of compassion. The final penalty imposed on Atty. Jeoffrey S. Joaquino is a FINE of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (₱10,000.00), with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall merit dismissal from the service. The complaint against Sheriff Constancio V. Alimurung was dismissed for lack of merit.