ALCONERA v PALLANAN
judiciary with him.
Petitioner/s: Atty. Virgilio Alconera
Respondent/s: Alfredo Pallanan
Doctrine:
Facts:
(1) [Antecent Facts] Atty. Alconera is the counsel for Morito Rafols, the defendant in
an unlawful detainer case (Cua Beng v Morita Rafols et al). The MTCC Gen San
therein ruled against Rafols and his co-defendants, ordered them to vacate the
subject lots and deliver possession to Cua Beng and pay back rentals of P5,000
per month until he vacates the premises.
(2) Rafols, through Atty. Alconera, appealed the case to the RTC. Pending appeal,
the court issued an Order granting Cua Bengs motion for execution in the
unlawful detainer case. Alconera filed an MR but it was denied.
(3) Few days later, Evelyn Rafols, the daughter-in-law, called up Alconera (who was
in Manila) to report that the sheriff, respondent Pallanan, was about to implement
the adverted writ of execution. Rafols informed Alconera that Pallanan arrived
with 30 other men to enforce the writ and demanded payment of P720k to settle
Rafols obligation, to which Rafols objected as he has been paying monthly
rentals in court.
(4) After which, she passed the phone to Pallanan, causing an argument between
Alconera and Pallanan to ensue over the phone.
a. Alconera: There is a pending MR on the issuance of the writ of execution.
b. Pallanan: MR has already been denied and since there is no TRO enjoining
the implementation, he is legally mandated to perform his ministerial duty of
enforcing the writ.
c. Alconera: He did not receive a copy of the denial of the MR, rendering the
execution premature and preventing him from securing a TRO from the SC.
Despite the conversation over the phone, Pallanan still pushed through with the
execution of the judgment.
(5) When Alconera returned to his law office in Gen San, he found a copy of the
Order denying his MR, which was served only that day. Angry, he went to the
RTC and confronted Pallanan. The face-off escalated into a heated argument,
which was caught on video by Alconeras daughter, who was coincidentally the
office clerk. She filmed and transcribed the altercation which contained an
exchange of insults between the two.
(6) Thus, Alconera filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Pallanan for grave misconduct,
which was referred to the OCA.
a. Pallanan filed a comment: Duty of a court sheriff in enforcing a writ of
execution is ministerial and a sheriff is duty bound to implement it, unless
there is a TRO enjoining the execution. He also alleged that Alconera
berated him at his office and threatened to sue and kill him.
(7) Investigating Judge: Recommended Pallanan be admonished. As a Court
Employee, he must exercise utmost patience and humility in the performance of his
duties despite pressures and personal attacks, as he carries the image of the entire
Issue: W/N Pallanan can be held administratively liable for grave misconduct and
false testimony.
Held:
Grave Misconduct
a. Misconduct: Transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.
b. Grave misconduct: If it involves any of the additional elements of corruption,
willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules, all of which must
be established by substantial evidence, and must necessarily be manifest in a
charge of grave misconduct.
c. Alconera imputes grave misconduct on Pallanan on the ff:
- Enforcing the writ despite Alconera has yet to receive a copy of the Order
denying MR on the writ of execution
- Allegedly leaking to opposite counsel issuance of Order
- Allegedly demanding P720k form Rafols
- Allegedly being arrogant and disrespectful
d. Alconera admits that no TRO was issued nor allegations that a MTW has been
filed.
SC:
(1) The case herein spurred from an unlawful retainer case against Rafols.
- ROC Sec. 19, Rule 70: [GENERAL RULE] If judgment is rendered against
defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon motion,
- [EXCEPTIONS] Unless (1) an appeal is perfected, (2) supersedeas bond is
filed (within the appeal period), and (3) periodic rent deposits or reasonable
compensation are made during pendency of the appeal.
- [EXCEPTION TO EXCEPTION] Non-compliance due to fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence, which prevented def. from posting bond
or monthly deposit or supervening event making execution inequitable.
- Reason: To avoid further injustice to a lawful possessor
(2) Case herein: Although Alconera lost his clients case and appealed to the RTC,
and deposited rental with the court, the bond filed did not meet the legal reqs
because it was posted as a property bond, not cash nor surety, and he did not
even own the property bond. Because of non-compliance with the conditions, the
execution of the judgment was not stayed.
(3) Thus, there was no legal impediment preventing Pallanan to enforce the writ both
as to restoration of possession and payment of accrued rentals or compensation.
A sheriffs duty in execution of a writ is purely ministerial. He has no discretion
w/n to execute the judgment. Absent a TRO or Order of quashal or compliance
with Sec. 19, Rule 70, Pallanan has no alternative but to enforce the writ.
(4) HOWEVER, the sheriff must comply the ROC in executing the writ. Any act
deviating from the procedure (under Sec. 10, Rule 39) is misconduct and
warrants disciplinary action.
- Sec. 10, Rule 39: Requirement of Notice of writ and demand from
defendant to vacate property within 3 days.
- Although the MR was allegedly served on the same day when the writ was
executed, Alconera failed to prove such allegation.
Discourtesy in Performance of Official Duty
SC: Nevertheless, Court recommends that Pallanan be penalized for discourtesy in
the performance of his official duties.
(1) As a public officer and trustee for the public, it is his responsibility to demonstrate
courtesy and civility in his official actuations with the public.
- Employees of the judiciary are expected to accord respect to the person
and the rights of another. Their every act and word should be characterized
by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity.
- Government service is people-oriented; high-strung and belligerent
behavior has no place therein.
- Rude hostile behavior often translates to personal conflict and pollutant of
peaceful work environment, affecting the quality of service that the office
renders to the public.
(2) Case herein: Based on the transcript of the altercation, it is readily apparent that
Pallanan has indeed been remised in this duty of observing courtesy in serving
the public. He should have exercised restraint in dealing with Alconera, instead of
allowing the quarrel to escalate into a hostile encounter. His demeanour
tarnished the image not only of his office, but that of the judiciary as a whole,
exposing him to disciplinary measure.
Making Untruthful Statements
SC: The charge must fail.
(1) Statements mentioned in Alconeras complaint-affidavit is not conclusive
evidence as only a part of the argument was recorded. Thus, there is a
probability that there is more to the argument than what was caught on video.
FALLO: Pallanan is ADMONISHED and WARNED to be always be courteous in
dealing with the public in the performance of his official duties.