A.M. No. P123069. January 20, 2014.

*
ATTY. VIRGILIO P. ALCONERA, complainant, vs.
ALFREDO T. PALLANAN, respondent.

Administrative Law Grave Misconduct The misconduct is

grave 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.
Misconduct has been defined as a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly,
unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The
misconduct is grave 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. In this case, complainant imputes grave misconduct
on the respondent for the following acts: 1. For enforcing the writ
despite the fact that complainant has yet to receive the copy of the
order denying his motion for reconsideration on the issuance of
the writ of execution 2. For allegedly leaking to the opposing
counsel the issuance of the order denying the motion for
reconsideration 3. For allegedly demanding P720,000 from Rafols
for a P165,000.00 obligation and 4. For allegedly being arrogant
and disrespectful.
Remedial Law Special Civil Actions Ejectment In ejectment
cases, the rulings of the courts are immediately executory and can
only be stayed via compliance with Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules
of [Link] must be borne in mind that the case at bar traces its
roots to an unlawful detainer case wherein the MTCC ruled
against Rafols, complainants client. In ejectment cases, the
rulings of the courts are immediately executory and can only be
stayed via compliance with Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of
Court, to wit: Section 19. Immediate execution of judgment how
to stay [Link] judgment is rendered against the defendant,
execution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless an appeal
has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a
sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

205

Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay

the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the
judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the
appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent
due from time to time under the contract, if any, as determined by
the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a
contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the
reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the
preceding month or period at the rate determined by the
judgment of the lower court on or before the tenth day of each
succeeding month or period. The supersedeas bond shall be
transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court, with the other papers,
to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which the action is
appealed.
Same Same Same Under said Sec. 19, Rule 70, a judgment
on a forcible entry and detainer action is made immediately
executory to avoid further injustice to a lawful [Link]
then under said Sec. 19, Rule 70, a judgment on a forcible entry
and detainer action is made immediately executory to avoid
further injustice to a lawful possessor. The defendant in such a
case may have such judgment stayed only by (a) perfecting an
appeal (b) filing a supersedeas bond and (c) making a periodic
deposit of the rental or reasonable compensation for the use and
occupancy of the property during the pendency of the appeal. The
failure of the defendant to comply with any of these conditions is
a ground for the outright execution of the judgment, the duty of
the court in this respect being ministerial and imperative. Hence,
if the defendantappellant has perfected the appeal but failed to
file a supersedeas bond, the immediate execution of the judgment
would automatically follow. Conversely, the filing of a
supersedeas bond will not stay the execution of the judgment if
the appeal is not perfected. Necessarily then, the supersedeas
bond should be filed within the period for the perfection of the
appeal.
Administrative Law Court Personnel Sheriffs The sheriffs
duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial he is to execute
the order of the court strictly to the letter. He has no discretion
whether to execute the judgment or [Link] is that the
sheriffs duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial he is
to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter. He has no
discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. When the writ
is placed in his hands, it is his duty, in the absence of any
instructions to the

206

contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to

implement it in accordance with its mandate. It is only by doing
so could he ensure that the order is executed without undue
delay. This holds especially true herein where the nature of the
case requires immediate execution. Absent a TRO, an order of
quashal, or compliance with Sec. 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court,
respondent sheriff has no alternative but to enforce the writ.
Same Same Same Enforcement in ejectment cases requires
the sheriff to give notice of such writ and to demand from
defendant to vacate the property within three days A sheriff who
enforces the writ without the required notice or before the expiry of
the threeday period is running afoul with the Rules.
Enforcement in ejectment cases requires the sheriff to give notice
of such writ and to demand from defendant to vacate the property
within three days. Only after such period can the sheriff enforce
the writ by the bodily removal of the defendant in the ejectment
case and his personal belongings. Even in cases wherein decisions
are immediately executory, the required threeday notice cannot
be dispensed with. A sheriff who enforces the writ without the
required notice or before the expiry of the threeday period is
running afoul with the Rules.
Same Grave Misconduct Without evidence of any departure
from well established rules, any unlawful behavior, or any gross
negligence on his part, the presumption remains applicable and
respondent cannot be held administratively liable for the offense of
grave [Link] deviation from the Rules has been
properly ascribed to respondent. As an officer of the court, he is
accorded the presumption of regularity in the performance of his
duties. The burden was on complainant to adduce evidence that
would prove the respondents culpability, if any. Without evidence
of any departure from well established rules, any unlawful
behaviour, or any gross negligence on his part, the presumption
remains applicable and respondent cannot be held
administratively liable for the offense of grave misconduct.
Same Public Officers As a public officer and a trustee for the
public, it is the ever existing responsibility of respondent to
demonstrate courtesy and civility in his official actuations with the
[Link] a public officer and a trustee for the public, it is the
ever existing responsibility of respondent to demonstrate courtesy
and civility in

207
his official actuations with the public. In Court Personnel of the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court San
Carlos City v. Llamas, 447 SCRA 69 (2004), this Court has held
that: Public service requires integrity and discipline. For this
reason, public servants must exhibit at all times the highest sense
of honesty and dedication to duty. By the very nature of their
duties and responsibilities, they must faithfully adhere to, hold
sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle that a
public office is a public trust that all public officers and
employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.
x x x x At all times, employees of the judiciary are expected to
accord respect to the person and the rights of another, even a co
employee. Their every act and word should be characterized by
prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity. Government service is
peopleoriented highstrung and belligerent behavior has no place
therein. Rude and hostile behavior often translates a personal
conflict into a potent pollutant of an otherwise peaceful work
environment ultimately, it affects the quality of service that the
office renders to the public. Letting personal hatred affect public
performance is a violation of the principle enshrined in the Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees, a principle that demands that public interest be
upheld over personal ones. Improper behavior especially during
office hours exhibits not only a paucity of professionalism at the
workplace, but also great disrespect for the court itself. Such
demeanor is a failure of circumspection demanded of every public
official and employee. Thus, the Court looks with great disfavor
upon any display of animosity by any court employee and exhorts
every court personnel to act with strict propriety and proper
decorum to earn public trust for the judiciary. Colleagues in the
judiciary, including those occupying the lowliest position, are
entitled to basic courtesy and respect. In discharging its
constitutional duty of supervising lower courts and their
personnel, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the judiciary is
composed essentially of human beings who have differing
personalities, outlooks and attitudes and who are naturally
vulnerable to human weaknesses. Nevertheless, the Code of
Judicial Ethics mandates that court personnel must not only be,
but also be perceived to be, free from any impropriety with
respect not only to their duties in the judicial branch, but also to
their behavior anywhere else.

208

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

Grave Misconduct and Making Untruthful Statements.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

VELASCO, JR., J.:
Before Us is an administrative complaint for Grave
Misconduct and Making Untruthful Statements filed by
Atty. Virgilio P. Alconera against Alfredo Pallanan, Sheriff
IV, assigned at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 36
in General Santos City.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Complainant was the counsel for Morito Rafols, the
defendant in Civil Case No. 59672, an unlawful detainer
case entitled Cua Beng a.k.a. Manuel Sy and Ka Kieng v.
Morito Rafols, et al., filed before the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2 in General Santos City, South
Cotabato. After trial, the MTCC ruled against Rafols and
his codefendants in a Judgment[1] dated March 12, 2009,
disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of

the plaintiffs and against the defendant MORITO RAFOLS,
his privies, assigns, heirs, transferee, sublessee, colessee or
agents if any to vacate from the subject lots and deliver
possession thereof to the plaintiffs and for defendant to pay
back rentals of P5,000.00 per month from June 2008 and
every succeeding months thereafter until he vacate the
premises and to jointly and severally, together with all
other defendants, pay attorneys fees in the amount of
P20,000.00 with the other defendants and costs of litigation.
SO ORDERED.

_______________
[1] Penned by Judge Jose A. Bersales Exhibit F of the Judicial
Affidavit of Virgilio Alconera.

209

Therefrom, Rafols, through complainant Alconera,

appealed the case to the RTC, Branch 36, docketed as Civil
Case No. 675. Pending appeal, the court issued an Order
dated February 18, 2011 granting Cua Bengs motion for
execution she filed in Civil Case No. 59672, the unlawful
detainer case. Alconera sought reconsideration but the
motion was denied through another Order[2] dated March
14, 2011.
On March 17, 2011, a troubled Evelyn Rafols, Rafols
daughterinlaw, called up Alconera, who at that time was
in Manila, to report that the sheriff, respondent Pallanan,
was about to implement the adverted writ of execution.
Evelyn Rafols informed Alconera that respondent sheriff
arrived along with the lawyer of the opposing party and 30
other men to enforce the writ. Respondent sheriff then
allegedly demanded payment of PhP720,000 to settle
Rafols obligation to which the latter protested on the
ground that the amount is too exorbitant when they have
been religiously depositing monthly rentals in court to
satisfy the judgment.
After explaining the matter to Alconera, Evelyn Rafols
passed her phone to respondent sheriff. Over the phone, a
verbal disagreement between the two ensued. Alconera
claims that he has a pending motion for reconsideration on
the issuance of the writ of execution, but the respondent
said that the motion has already been denied. And since no
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) has been issued
enjoining the implementation, respondent claimed that he
is legally mandated to perform his ministerial duty of
enforcing the writ. Complainant countered that he has not
yet received a copy of the denial of the motion, rendering
the execution premature and, at the same time, preventing
him from securing a TRO from the higher courts.
Nevertheless, respondent still pushed through with the
execution of the judgment.
On March 18, 2011, complainant returned to General
Santos City and, at his law office, found a copy of the Order
deny

_______________
[2] Rollo, p. 14.

210

ing his Motion for Reconsideration, which was only served

that very same day. The RTC ruled that there was no
pending Motion to Approve Supersedeas Bond filed with it.
Instead, what was filed not with the RTC but with the
MTCC was a NOTICE OF APPEAL and MOTION
TO APPROVE PROPERTY SUPERSEDEAS BOND,
which was not granted.
That afternoon, Alconera went to RTC Br. 36 with his
daughter to confront respondent sheriff. The faceoff
escalated into a heated argument caught on video. It was
complainants daughter, Shyla Mae Zapanta, who is
coincidentally his office clerk, who filmed the incident and
transcribed the dialogue during the altercation. As
hereunder translated in English, the exchanges went:

ATTY. ALCONERA: Pag hatod nimo didto sa demolition order, kabalo

ka na wala pa ko kadawat ug denial? (When you served the
demolition order, you know that I did not yet receive a copy of the
denial order?)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Denial sa unsa, motion? (Denial of what,
motion?)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Oo. (Yes.)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Attorney, ang motion inyoha nang kuan diri sa
korte, and akoa sa writ ko. As long as the sheriff did not receive a
TRO or any order from the court restraining him to implement the
writ, I have to go. So in case, just in case, na may resolution si judge
na ireconsider and iyang order after they declare, ideliver na sa area
kung asa giexecute so the sheriff will move out. (Attorney, the
motion, that is your what do you call this, here in court. Mine is
the writ. As long as the sheriff did not receive a TRO or any order
from the court restraining him to implement the writ, I have to go.
So in case, just in case, the judge reconsiders his order, they will
declare, deliver it to the area where the writ if executed so the
sheriff will move out.)

211

ATTY. ALCONERA: Mo execute diay ka? Dili diay ka mangutana kung

duna pa bay motion for recon ani? (So you will execute? You will not
inquire whether a motion for reconsideration has been filed?)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Bisag may motion for recon na, Attorney, I have
to go gyud. (Even if there is a motion for reconsideration, I really
have to go.)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Uy, di man na ingon ana, uy! Ana imong natunan
as sheriff?
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Oo mao na sya. Mao na sya sa akoa ha, mao
na sya. (Yes, that is it. That is it to me ha, that is it.)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Kita ra ta sa Supreme Court ani. (Let us see each
other in the Supreme Court.)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: (unintelligible) Ang imoha anaimong
motion ana and imong motion ana, delaying tactic. (Your motion
is a delaying tactic.)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Ah, sige lang, atubang lang ta sa Supreme Court.
(Ok, lets just see each other in the Supreme Court.)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Oo, atubangon nako ko na siya, pero mag
review pud ka.
ATTY. ALCONERA: Unsay magreview? (What review?)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Motion nang imoha, Dong. (Yours is motion,
Dong.) (Dong is equivalent to the Filipino term Totoy if used by
one to address someone older than him, it is an insult.)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Naunsa man ka, Dong. (What happened to you,
Dong?)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Motion na imoha Dapat diri ka mag file, dili
ka didto magfile. Ayaw ko awaya. (Yours is motion. You should file
 it here, you do not file it there. Dont quarrel with me.)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Lahi imong tono sa akoa sa telepono Dong ba. (You
were rude in the telephone, Dong.)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Oo, kay lain man pud ka mag sulti. Ang imong
venue kay diri, dili sa area. (Yes,

212

because you also talked bad, your venue is here in court, not in the
area.)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Ingon nako sa imo nakadawat ka ba.. nakadawat
ba ug (I was just asking you whether you received)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Dili nako na concern. (That is not my concern.)
ATTY. ALCONERA: O, ngano nag ingon man ka nga Ayaw ko diktahe,
Attorney? (Why did you say, Dont dictate on me, Attorney?)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Yes, do not dictate me. Kay abogado ka, sheriff
ko. Lahi tag venue. Trabaho akoa, magtrabaho pud ka. (Yes, do not
dictate me. Because you are a lawyer, and I am a sheriff. I do my
job, you do yours.)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Bastos kaayo ka manulti ba. (You are very rude!)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Ikaw ang bastos! (You are the one who is rude!)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Magkita ta sa Supreme Court. (I will see you in the
Supreme Court.)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Magkita ta, eh! Ikaw lang akong hadlukan nga
wala man ka sa area. (As you wish, I am not afraid of you, you were
not in the area.)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Unsa nang inyong style diri, Kempeta? (What is
your style here, Kempetai?)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Dili man! Na may order. Why cant you accept?
(No! There is an order. Why cant you accept?)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Naay proseso, Dong. Mao ning proseso: ang MR,
proseso ang MR. (There is a process, Dong. This is the process: MR.)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Oo, proseso pud na ang akong pagimplement.
Naay writ. (Yes, my implementing the writ is also a process. There
is a writ.)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Nabuang, ka Dong? (What is going on with you,
Dong?)

213

SHERIFF PALLANAN: Ka dugay na nimo nga abogado, wala ka

kabalo! (You have been a lawyer for a long time now, yet you do not
know!)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Dugay na bitaw. Ikaw bago ka lang na sheriff.
(Yes, I have been a lawyer for a long time now, you, you are new in
your job as sheriff).
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Pero kabalo ko. (But I know.)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Susmaryosep!
 SHERIFF PALLANAN: O, di ba? Wala sa padugayay. Naa sa kahibalo.
(Isnt that true? It is not the length of time one has spent on his job.
It is the knowledge that one possesses.)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Tanawa imong pagka sheriff, Dong. (Know you job
as a sheriff, Dong.)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Tanawa pud imong pagka abogado kung sakto.
Pilde! Sige mo pangulekta didto ibayad sa imo! (Know your job also
as a lawyer, see if you are correct. Loser! You [and the Rafols] are
always collecting [from the other defendants] so your fees can be
paid!)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Ngano wala man lagi nimo kuhaa ang mga butang
didto, Dong? (Why did you not bring with you the things that you
had gathered, Dong.)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Oo, kay hulaton ta ka pag demotion. (Yes,
because I will wait for you on demotion day.)
ATTY. ALCONERA: Nahadlok ka, Dong. (You were afraid, Dong.)
SHERIFF PALLANAN: Wala ko nahadlok, Doy. Sa demotion adto
didto, Attorney. Sulayi ko! Sulayan nato imong pagkaabogado! (Im
not afraid of you, Doy. On demotion day, you go there, Attorney.
You try me! Let us see how good a lawyer you are.) (Doy is the
same as Dong.)
ATTY. ALCONERA: March 22 pa ang hearing sa imong abogado, Dong.
(The hearing of the motion of your lawyer, is on March 22 yet,
Dong.)

214

SHERIFF PALLANAN: Asus, Pinobre na imong style, Attorney. Bulok!

(Your style is that of an impoverished lawyer, Attorney. Dullard!)

It is against the foregoing backdrop of events that
Alconera filed a ComplaintAffidavit[3] against the
respondent sheriff for grave misconduct before this Court
on April 6, 2011. The case was referred to the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) and was docketed as AM No.
113634P. As directed by the OCA, respondent filed his
comment.[4] In it, he averred that the duty of a court sheriff
in enforcing a writ of execution is ministerial, and without
a TRO enjoining it, a sheriff is duty bound to implement it.
On July 14, 2011, respondent filed his own Affidavit of
Complaint[5] against herein complainant for Grave
Misconduct and for violating the Code of Ethics.
Respondent alleged that during the enforcement of the
writ, a second phone conversation took place. Complainant
allegedly called up Evelyn Rafols who put him on
loudspeaker for the respondent to hear his words. Alconera
then allegedly made a threat that there will be bloodshed if
respondents party pushes through with the
implementation of the writ. Respondent likewise claimed
that complainant berated him at his office on March 18,
2011 and that the incident was orchestrated by the
complainant. His (respondent sheriffs) complaint affidavit
avers:

6. GRAVE MISCONDUCT OF ATTY. VIRGILIO

ALCONERA The planned attack happened in our office
on March 18, 2011 in the afternoon, after lunch, in the
presence of his lady companion (believed to [be] his
daughter), who is so delighted in taking videos. He is so
angry and at rage as if he is the boss in our office, yelling
and nagging at me with NO RESPECT as a nomad. THE
ONLY PERSON AROUND WAS ME, THE GIRL HE

_______________
[3] Id., at p. 1.
[4] Id., at p. 173.
[5] Exhibit J of the Judicial Affidavit of Virgilio Alconera.

215

BROUGHT THERE (who is taking videos), AND THE

NAGGING ATTY. VIRGILIO ALCONERA (JUST THREE
OF US), while pointing his finger into his MOTION for
Reconsideration that he is holding [sic] almost an inch to
my face. Saying KITA NIMO NI, KITA NIMO NI? NA
INSULTO KO NIMO NGANO WALA KA NI PATOO
NAKO PAYLAN TAKA UG KASO HULATA SA SUPREME
COURT! (DO YOU SEE THIS? DO YOU SEE THIS? YOU
INSULTED ME WHY DID YOU NOT FOLLOW MY
ORDER I WILL FILE CHARGES AGAINST YOU WAIT
FOR IT IN THE SUPREME COURT!) HE wants me to
shiver in scare and expect me to beg. No, GO I said. I
ALWAYS REPEATED THE WORDS WHERE IS YOUR
T.R.O. Just present it. Because he is too loud, Mrs. Nenita
Paredes, our stenographer, ARRIVED and middle on us our
arguments. On the mid part of the arguments, he recorded
the events he and his companion, cohort in designing the
plan of the attack, orchestrated it. ITS AN ASSAULT TO
THE OFFICER OF THE LAW. He told me SHERIFF KA
LANG WALA KAY NABAL AN. NGANON NADAWAT
MAN KA DIRI BOGO KA. (YOU ARE JUST A SHERIFF.
WHAT DO YOU KNOW? WHY ARE YOU ADMITTED
HERE YOU DUMB, WHO TAUGHT YOU THAT?) Ana mo
diri IPINATAY! KINSA NAG TUDLO SA IMOHA ANA.
While he almost struck his motion papers into my face, I
was caught unaware.
 In view of respondents countercharge, Alconera
supplemented his affidavitcomplaint[6] to include a charge
against the former for False Testimony. Complainant
belied the claims of respondent sheriff, and showed that
the respondents allegations can nowhere be seen in the
transcript of the altercation.
On March 2, 2012, this Court, upon the OCAs
recommendation, resolved to redocket Alconeras
complaint as a regular administrative case with docket No.
A.M. No. P123069 and referred the same to the Executive
Judge of the Regional

_______________
[6] Rollo, p. 188.

216

Trial Court, General Santos City, South Cotabato, for

investigation, report, and recommendation.
After due proceedings, the investigating judge submitted
a report, styled as Order[7] dated August 6, 2013, with the
following recommendation:

Based on the findings and evaluation, the herein

Executive Judge hereby recommends the respondent Sheriff
be ADMONISHED. The respondent must be reminded that
as a Court Employee, he must exercise utmost patience and
humility in the performance of his duties amidst all the
pressures and personal attacks against his person because
he carried with him the image of the entire judiciary.
SO ORDERED.

The Executive Judge adopted the transcript of the

altercation as appearing in the affidavit of Shyla Mae
Zapanta and based his recommendation mainly thereon.

The Issues
The main issue in this case is whether or not respondent
can be held administratively liable for grave misconduct
and false testimony. In fine, the controversy stems from the
propriety of the implementation of the writ of execution,
and the altercation between complainant and respondent.
While the investigating judge made a recommendation
based on how respondent conducted himself as an officer of
the court in the afternoon of March 18, 2013, there was no
discussion regarding the propriety of the implementation of
the writ, which is the main issue in the case for grave
misconduct. It then behooves this Court to sift through the
arguments and records to rule on this point.

_______________
[7] Penned by Judge Oscar P. Noel, Jr.

217

The Courts Ruling

Grave Misconduct
Misconduct has been defined as a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly,
unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.
The misconduct is grave 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.[8] In this case,
complainant imputes grave misconduct on the respondent
for the following acts:
1. For enforcing the writ despite the fact that
complainant has yet to receive the copy of the order
denying his motion for reconsideration on the
issuance of the writ of execution
2. For allegedly leaking to the opposing counsel the
issuance of the order denying the motion for
reconsideration
3. For allegedly demanding P720,000 from Rafols for a
P165,000.00 obligation and
4. For allegedly being arrogant and disrespectful.
Complainant admits that there is no TRO enjoining the
enforcement of the writ, nor allegation in his pleadings that
a motion to quash the writ of execution was ever filed.
However, complainant asserts that respondent committed
grave misconduct when the latter implemented the writ
prior to serving the complainant a copy of the order
denying the motion for reconsideration. According to
complainant, said motion stayed

_______________
[8] Tan v. Quitorio, A.M. No. P112919, May 31, 2011, 649 SCRA 12.

218
the execution, and the writ could not have been validly
executed without first informing the parties concerned of
the motions denial.
We rule against complainant on this point.
It must be borne in mind that the case at bar traces its
roots to an unlawful detainer case wherein the MTCC ruled
against Rafols, complainants client. In ejectment cases, the
rulings of the courts are immediately executory and can
only be stayed via compliance with Section 19, Rule 70 of
the Rules of Court, to wit:

Section 19. Immediate execution of judgment how to

stay [Link] judgment is rendered against the defendant,
execution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless an
appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay
execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by
the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the
plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down
to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless,
during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the
appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time
under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of
the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a contract, he
shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable
value of the use and occupation of the premises for the
preceding month or period at the rate determined by the
judgment of the lower court on or before the tenth day of
each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas bond
shall be transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court, with the
other papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to
which the action is appealed.

Clearly then under said Sec. 19, Rule 70, a judgment on

a forcible entry and detainer action is made immediately
executory to avoid further injustice to a lawful possessor.
The defendant in such a case may have such judgment
stayed only by (a) perfecting an appeal (b) filing a
supersedeas bond and

219

(c) making a periodic deposit of the rental or reasonable

compensation for the use and occupancy of the property
during the pendency of the appeal.[9] The failure of the
defendant to comply with any of these conditions is a
ground for the outright execution of the judgment, the
duty of the court in this respect being ministerial and
imperative. Hence, if the defendantappellant has perfected
the appeal but failed to file a supersedeas bond, the
immediate execution of the judgment would automatically
follow. Conversely, the filing of a supersedeas bond will not
stay the execution of the judgment if the appeal is not
perfected. Necessarily then, the supersedeas bond should
be filed within the period for the perfection of the appeal.
[10]
In the case at bar, complainant lost his clients case and
appealed to the RTC. His client has also been periodically
depositing rental with the court for the use of the property
pending appeal. However, as ruled by the RTC, the bond
filed did not meet the legal requirements because first and
foremost, the bond posted was a property bond, not cash
nor surety. Furthermore, Rafols did not own the property
he posted as bond and besides, it was also not issued in
favour of the plaintiff in the ejectment case. Because of the
noncompliance with the requirements under the above
quoted rule, the execution of the judgment was not
effectively stayed. The only exceptions to noncompliance
are the existence of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence which prevented the defendant from posting the
supersedeas bond or making the monthly deposit, or the
occurrence of supervening events which brought about a
material change in the situation of the parties and which
would make the execution ineq

_______________
[9]Lim v. UniTan Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 147328, February
20, 2002, 377 SCRA 491, 499.
[10] Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113886, February 24, 1998, 286
SCRA 437, 444445.

220

uitable.[11] But whether or not these obtain in the case at

bar is an issue best left to the court that issued the writ of
execution.
Given the above circumstances, there was no legal
impediment preventing respondent sheriff from performing
his responsibility of enforcing the writ of execution. Since
Rafols failed to comply with the requirements under the
Rules, Cua Beng who prevailed in the unlawful detainer
case is entitled as a matter of right to the immediate
execution of the courts judgment both as to the restoration
of possession and the payment of the accrued rentals or
compensation for the use and occupation of the premises.
[12]
Wellsettled is that the sheriffs duty in the execution of
a writ is purely ministerial he is to execute the order of the
court strictly to the letter. He has no discretion whether to
execute the judgment or not. When the writ is placed in his
hands, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to
the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and
promptness to implement it in accordance with its
mandate. It is only by doing so could he ensure that the
order is executed without undue delay.[13] This holds
especially true herein where the nature of the case requires
immediate execution. Absent a TRO, an order of quashal,
or compliance with Sec. 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court,
respondent sheriff has no alternative but to enforce the
writ.
Immediacy of the execution, however, does not mean
instant execution. The sheriff must comply with the Rules
of Court in executing a writ. Any act deviating from the
procedure laid down in the Rules of Court is a misconduct
and warrants disciplinary action. In this case, Sec. 10(c),
Rule 39

_______________
[11] De Laureano v. Adil, No. L43345, July 29, 1976, 72 SCRA 149,
157.
[12] Id., at p. 156.
[13] Cebu International Finance Corporation v. Cabigon, A.M. No. P06
2107, February 14, 2007, 515 SCRA 616, 622.

221

of the Rules prescribes the procedure in the

implementation of the writ. It provides:

Section 10. Execution of judgments for specific act.

xxxx
(c) Delivery or restitution of real [Link] officer
shall demand of the person against whom the judgment for
the delivery or restitution of real property is rendered and
all persons claiming rights under him to peaceably vacate
the property within three (3) working days, and restore
possession thereof to the judgment obligee, otherwise, the
officer shall oust all such persons therefrom with the
assistance, if necessary, of appropriate peace officers, and
employing such means as may be reasonably necessary to
retake possession, and place the judgment obligee in
possession of such property. Any costs, damages, rents or
profits awarded by the judgment shall be satisfied in the
same manner as a judgment for money.

 Based on this provision, enforcement in ejectment cases
requires the sheriff to give notice of such writ and to
demand from defendant to vacate the property within three
days. Only after such period can the sheriff enforce the writ
by the bodily removal of the defendant in the ejectment
case and his personal belongings.[14] Even in cases wherein
decisions are immediately executory, the required three
day notice cannot be dispensed with. A sheriff who enforces
the writ without the required notice or before the expiry of
the threeday period is running afoul with the Rules.[15]
In the present controversy, the Order denying the
motion for reconsideration was allegedly served, according
to the

_______________
[14] San Manuel Wood Products, Inc. v. Tupas, A.M. No. MTJ
93892, October 25, 1995, 249 SCRA 466, 476.
[15] Mendoza v. Doroni, A.M. No. P041872, January 31, 2006,
481 SCRA 41, 5253.

222

respondent, on the same day the writ was executed on

March 17, 2011. Complainant, however, avers that his
office was only able to receive the denial the day after the
execution or on March 18, 2011. At first blush, one might
hastily conclude that the threeday notice rule was
apparently not observed. This Court, however, is not
prepared to make such a finding. We are mindful of the
possibility that a demand to vacate has already been given
when complainant and Rafols were first served the Order
granting the issuance of a writ of execution, before the
motion for reconsideration was filed. More importantly,
complainant failed to allege concompliance with Sec. 10(c)
of Rule 39.
Thus far, no deviation from the Rules has been properly
ascribed to respondent. As an officer of the court, he is
accorded the presumption of regularity in the performance
of his duties. The burden was on complainant to adduce
evidence that would prove the respondents culpability, if
any. Without evidence of any departure from well
established rules, any unlawful behaviour, or any gross
negligence on his part, the presumption remains applicable
and respondent cannot be held administratively liable for
the offense of grave misconduct.

Discourtesy in the Performance of Official Duties
 The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court adopts in part
the recommendation of the investigating judge that
respondent should nonetheless be penalized for discourtesy
in the performance of his official duties.
As a public officer and a trustee for the public, it is the
ever existing responsibility of respondent to demonstrate
courtesy and civility in his official actuations with the
public.[16] In Court Personnel of the Office of the Clerk of
Court of the Re

_______________
[16]Abenojar v. Lopez, A.M. No. P2221, November 2, 1982, 118 SCRA
1, 4.

223

gional Trial Court San Carlos City v. Llamas,[17] this

Court has held that:

Public service requires integrity and discipline. For this

reason, public servants must exhibit at all times the highest
sense of honesty and dedication to duty. By the very nature
of their duties and responsibilities, they must faithfully
adhere to, hold sacred and render inviolate the
constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust
that all public officers and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.
xxxx
At all times, employees of the judiciary are expected to
accord respect to the person and the rights of another, even
a coemployee. Their every act and word should be
characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity.
Government service is peopleoriented highstrung and
belligerent behavior has no place therein.
Rude and hostile behavior often translates a personal
conflict into a potent pollutant of an otherwise peaceful
work environment ultimately, it affects the quality of
service that the office renders to the public. Letting
personal hatred affect public performance is a violation of
the principle enshrined in the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees, a principle
that demands that public interest be upheld over personal
ones.
Improper behavior especially during office hours exhibits
not only a paucity of professionalism at the workplace, but
also great disrespect for the court itself. Such demeanor is a
failure of circumspection demanded of every public official
 and employee. Thus, the Court looks with great disfavor
upon any display of animosity by any court employee and
exhorts every court personnel to act with strict propriety
and proper decorum to earn public trust for the judiciary.
Colleagues in the judi

_______________
[17] A.M. No. P041925, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 69.

224

ciary, including those occupying the lowliest position, are

entitled to basic courtesy and respect.
In discharging its constitutional duty of supervising
lower courts and their personnel, this Court cannot ignore
the fact that the judiciary is composed essentially of human
beings who have differing personalities, outlooks and
attitudes and who are naturally vulnerable to human
weaknesses. Nevertheless, the Code of Judicial Ethics
mandates that court personnel must not only be, but also be
perceived to be, free from any impropriety with respect
not only to their duties in the judicial branch, but also to
their behavior anywhere else.

Based on the transcript of the altercation, it is readily
apparent that respondent has indeed been remiss in this
duty of observing courtesy in serving the public. He should
have exercised restraint in dealing with the complainant
instead of allowing the quarrel to escalate into a hostile
encounter. The balm of a clean conscience should have been
sufficient to relieve any hurt or harm respondent felt from
complainants criticisms in the performance of his duties.
On the contrary, respondents 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

Lastly, the charge of making untruthful statements
must also fail. While the statements mentioned in
respondents complaintaffidavit were not reflected in the
transcript submitted by the complainant, this actuality is
not conclusive evidence that such event did not take place.
As claimed by respondent, complainants clerk was only
able to record a part of the argument. We cannot then
discount the probability that there is more to the argument
than what was caught on video and there remains the
possibility that what respondent narrated and what
complainant recorded both actually transpired.
 225

WHEREFORE, respondent Alfredo T. Pallanan is

ADMONISHED and WARNED to be always courteous in
dealing with the public in the performance of official duties.
A repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.
SO ORDERED.

Peralta, Abad, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Respondent Alfredo T. Pallanan admonished and

warned to be always courteous in dealing the public, with
warning against repetition of similar acts.

Notes.A sheriffs duty to execute a writ is simply

ministerial, and he is bound to perform only those tasks
stated under the Rules of Court and no more. Any interest
a third party may have on the property levied upon by the
sheriff to enforce a judgment is the third partys
responsibility to protect through the remedies provided
under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. (Golden Sun Finance
Corporation vs. Albano, 654 SCRA 375 [2011])
In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule
must be manifest. Corruption as an element of grave
misconduct consists in the act of an official or employee
who unlawfully or wrongfully uses her station or character
to procure some benefit for herself or for another, contrary
to the rights of others. (Velasco vs. Baterbonia, 681 SCRA
666 [2012])
o0o

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,[Link].