G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-13-2356 (Formerly OCA No. IPI-11-3701-RTJ)
Date: June 9, 2014

Case Parties: ARGEL D. HERNANDEZ, Complainant, vs. JUDGE VICTOR C. GELLA, PRESIDING JUDGE, CLARINCE B. JINTALAN, LEGAL RESEARCHER, and ROWENA B. JINTALAN, SHERIFF IV, ALL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 52, SORSOGON CITY, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Argel D. Hernandez filed an administrative complaint against respondents in connection with the implementation of a writ of execution in Case No. 2005-7473 (Maria Purisima Borlasa v. Spouses Jesus Hernandez and Margarita De Vera), a proceeding for consolidation of ownership. The property was sold at public auction to Borlasa, and a final bill of sale was issued in 2007. In 2009, Borlasa’s motion for a writ of execution was granted. Sheriff Rowena B. Jintalan attempted implementation in 2010 but was resisted by Hernandez, who filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. On May 31, 2011, Sheriff Jintalan successfully implemented the writ.
Hernandez alleged that the implementation was abusive. He claimed Sheriff Jintalan and Legal Researcher Clarince B. Jintalan (her husband), accompanied by policemen and armed men, destroyed his house, removed his family’s belongings and valuables, and transported them to the warehouse of Vicente Bonaobra (brother and attorney-in-fact of the plaintiff), traumatizing his children. He argued these acts exceeded their authority and would not have occurred had Judge Victor C. Gella not authorized the execution despite the pending CA petition.
Judge Gella denied the charges, stating the RTC afforded due process, Sheriff Jintalan had granted Hernandez concessions, and Hernandez was a disgruntled litigant resisting lawful orders. Legal Researcher Jintalan explained he assisted his wife; police help was necessary due to Hernandez’s resistance and threats; damaging the fence chain and door lock was needed to gain entry after Hernandez padlocked the gate, parked a truck as a barricade, and used his children to block the door; and no jewelry or money were taken. Sheriff Jintalan asserted she performed her ministerial duty; damaging the fence and door was necessary; only a few items were removed due to Hernandez’s barricade and provocation; items were taken to Bonaobra’s warehouse for safekeeping; and only police carried firearms.

ISSUE

1. Whether Judge Victor C. Gella is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for authorizing the execution despite a pending petition for certiorari.
2. Whether Legal Researcher Clarince B. Jintalan is administratively liable for abuse of authority for his actions during the implementation.
3. Whether Sheriff Rowena B. Jintalan is administratively liable for abuse of authority or neglect in implementing the writ of execution.

RULING

1. Re: Judge Victor C. Gella: The administrative complaint is DISMISSED. The complaint relates to his judicial functions (denial of Hernandez’s motion for reconsideration/motion to quash the writ). An administrative complaint is not a substitute for proper judicial remedies (e.g., appeal, certiorari). Only a higher court can review errors of judgment or grave abuse of discretion. Filing administrative complaints against judges for judicial acts undermines judicial independence and is not tolerated.
2. Re: Legal Researcher Clarince B. Jintalan: The administrative complaint is DISMISSED for being unsubstantiated. He acted under the court’s official authority to assist in implementing the writ. Holding him liable would be a travesty of justice given his official role.
3. Re: Sheriff Rowena B. Jintalan: She is found GUILTY of SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY. Implementing a writ is a ministerial duty. She failed to keep levied personal properties in her direct custody as required, instead placing them in the warehouse of Vicente Bonaobra, the plaintiff’s brother and attorney-in-fact, creating an impression of impropriety. This constitutes simple neglect of duty (failure to give proper attention to a task due to carelessness or indifference). The penalty is SUSPENSION for one month and one day without pay, with a stern warning against repetition.
The Court adopted the recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).