AM P 11 2986; (June, 2012) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-11-2986; June 13, 2012
Spouses Rainer Tiu and Jennifer Tiu, Complainants, vs. Virgilio F. Villar, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Pasay City, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainants Spouses Tiu were defendants in a civil case for sum of money where a writ of preliminary attachment was issued. Respondent Sheriff Virgilio Villar implemented the writ, attaching personal properties at the spouses’ office after substituted service of summons. The trial court later dismissed the case against the spouses on grounds of improper venue and ordered the immediate return of the attached properties. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay the return.
Instead of immediately complying with the return order, Sheriff Villar filed a “Sheriff’s Report with Urgent Prayer for Issuance of Clarificatory Order” with the trial court, seeking guidance on whether to await the finality of the order given the pending appeal. The Spouses Tiu then filed this administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Service. They alleged improper service of summons, lack of coordination with the local sheriff, a demand for money for the release of properties, and a malicious refusal to obey the court’s return order.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Virgilio Villar is administratively liable for the acts complained of.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the administrative complaint. On the charge of refusing to obey the court order, the Court found no deliberate defiance. While Rule 57, Section 19 of the Rules of Civil Procedure mandates the delivery of attached property to the party against whom attachment was issued upon an adverse judgment, and the sheriff should have complied immediately without waiting for finality, his act of seeking clarification from the court via a Sheriff’s Report was a proper step under the circumstances. It demonstrated prudence and a desire for proper guidance, not willful disobedience.
Regarding the alleged demand for money, the Court ruled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant. The Spouses Tiu failed to present substantial evidence to corroborate their bare allegation. Mere accusation, without proof, is insufficient to establish liability. The other charges pertaining to the implementation of the writ were also not substantiated. Thus, the respondent sheriff was exonerated from all administrative charges.