Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

ALCONERA v PALLANAN duties despite pressures and personal attacks, as he carries the image of the entire

judiciary with him.

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