FIRSTDIVISION

[A.M.No.P052059.August19,2005]

ATTY.AUDIEC.ARNADO,complainant,vs.EDILBERTOR.SUARIN,SheriffIII,MunicipalTrialCourtinCities,Branch8,CebuCity,
respondent.
DECISION
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

[1]
Inhiscomplaint filed on October 3, 2003 with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Atty. Audie C. Arnado charged Sheriff III Edilberto R. Suarin of
MunicipalTrialCourtinCities(MTCC)CebuCity,Branch8,withSeriousMisconduct,Oppression,HarassmentandUnethicalConductrelativetoCivilCaseNo.R
37529entitledLourdesL.Rosarosov.Sps.AudieandCarolineArnado.
ComplainantallegedthatSheriffSuarinprematurelyimplementedthewritofexecutionandservednoticestovacatebybanginghisgate,shoutingandcreating
[2]
publicscandal,andpostingnoticesatthegatewhichcausedhimhumiliation.
[3]
[4]
InhisComment, SheriffSuarinallegedthathemerelyimplementedthefinaldecisionofthetrialcourt. Hebeliedtheallegationsinthecomplaintandclaimed
that he always used the buzzer each time he served the notice in complainants residence that an employee of spouses Arnado would open the peep hole and
informhimthatthespousesarenotaroundtheninstructhimtoslipthenoticeintheopeningunderneaththegate.
[5]
IntheMarch30,2003AgendaReport, theOCArecommendedthedismissalofthecomplaintagainstSheriffSuarinforlackofmeritandthatAtty.Arnadobe
directed to explain why he should not be administratively sanctioned for filing a frivolous complaint, which recommendation was adopted by this Court in its
[6]
Resolution ofJune7,2004.
[7]
In his Comment, Atty. Arnado maintained that his complaint against Sheriff Suarin is not frivolous and was not filed to exact revenge but to bring to the
attentionoftheCourtthecorruptactsofjudicialemployees.HeallegedthatJudgeMamertoY.ColifloresofMTCCCebuCity,BranchI,waspaidP30,000.00to
renderthejudgmentofevictionwhileSheriffSuarinreceivedP60,000.00toimplementthesame.Thelatterallegedlyimplementedthewritwithoutwaitingforthetrial
courtsresolutionoftheircomplainttoannulthesaleanddeedofdonation.

TheOCArecommendedthatcomplainant,Atty.ArnadobefinedintheamountofP5,000.00forfilingagroundlesssuit.

[8]

WeagreewiththefindingsoftheOCA.
ItappearsthatinCivilCaseNo.R37529forEjectmentfiledbyLourdesL.RosarosoagainstspousesArnadobeforeMTCCCebuCity,Branch1,decisionwas
rendereddirecting,amongothers,spousesArnadotovacatethepremisesandturnoverphysicalpossessionthereoftoRosaroso.Thedecisionbecamefinaland
[9]
[10]
executory onDecember9,1999perEntryofJudgmentissuedbytheJudicialRecordsOffice
ofthisCourt.
[11]
[12]
OnApril28,2000,JudgeColifloresissuedaWritofExecution
butitsimplementationwasdelayed
becausespousesArnadofiledseveralmotions.They
[13]
[14]
moved to quash the writ and/or suspend execution but the same was denied.
After denial of their motion for reconsideration,
they filed a petition for
[15]
[16]
certiorari
withtheRTCprayingthatMTCCbeorderedtostayexecution
pendingresolutionofCivilCaseNo.CEB19194forNullityorAnnulmentofSaleand
[17]
RevocationofDonationwithDamages
beforetheRTCofCebuCity.TheyalsomovedfortheinhibitionofJudgeColifloreswhichwasgranted,hence,thecase
[18]
wasraffledtoMTCCCebuCity,Branch8,presidedbyJudgeEdgemeloC.Rosales.
[19]
[20]
InanOrderdatedJanuary25,2002,
JudgeRosalesdirectedfullimplementationofthewrit.Again,Atty.Arnadomovedtoquashthewrit
butthesame
[21]
[22]
was denied on February 19, 2002.
A Petition for Certiorari was filed before RTCCebu City, Branch 12 which was also denied.
The order dismissing the
[23]
applicationforpreliminaryinjunctiontostopexecutionlikewisebecamefinalandexecutory.
ThewritwasimplementedinitiallybySheriffIIIRoldanArteswhoservedaNoticetoVacate,a2ndNoticetoVacateandNoticetoImplementWritofExecution,
[24]
[25]
andaNoticeofLevyonExecutionuponRealProperty
whichwereallunheeded.Onsubsequentdates,
SheriffSuarinattemptedtoservethenotices,but
[26]
spousesArnadowerenotaroundandthelattersemployeesrefusedhimentry.Thus,onOctober11,2002,anorder
tobreakopenthepremiseswasissuedby
JudgeRosales.
Atty. Arnado sought reconsideration of the break open order and moved to inhibit Judge Rosales and charged him administratively
[28]
IgnoranceoftheLawandGraveAbuseofDiscretion.

[27]
for Partiality, Gross

Incidentally,thisCourtdismissedAtty.ArnadoscomplaintagainstJudgeRosalesforlackofsufficientevidenceandatthesametimereferredthecountercharge
[29]
ofJudgeRosalestotheOfficeoftheBarConfidantforappropriateaction.
[30] rd
[31]
Thereafter,SheriffSuarinserveda2ndNoticetoVacatedatedJanuary7,2003,
3 NoticetoVacatedatedSeptember16,2003,
andaFinalNoticeto

VacatedatedOctober6,2003

[32]
butonlytotheemployeesofspousesArnadobecausethelatterwerenotalwaysaround.

ItiswelltonotethatasearlyasDecember9,1999,thejudgmentintheejectmentcasehasbecomefinalandexecutory,butthroughlegalmaneuverings,Atty.
Arnadowasabletodelayitsexecutionforseveralyears.
Inadministrativeproceedings,complainantshavetheburdenofprovingbysubstantialevidencetheallegationsintheircomplaints.Administrativeproceedings
againstjudicialemployeesarebynature,highlypenalincharacterandaretobegovernedbytherulesapplicabletocriminalcases.Thequantumofproofrequired
[33]
tosupporttheadministrativechargesshouldthusbemoresubstantialandtheymustbeprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Inthiscase,Atty.Arnadonotonlylackedpersonalknowledgeofthechargesbutalsofailedtosubstantiatethem.HeclaimedthatSheriffSuarinbangedathis
gate,shoutedandpostednoticesatthegatebuthefailedtomentionthedetailsandthedatesonwhichtheseinfractionswereallegedtohavebeencommitted.He
presentednowitnessestoprovehisclaimparticularlyhisemployeeswhohadalwaysinformedthesheriffthatheandhiswifewereawayeachtimethenoticeswere
served.
Atty.ArnadomustknowthatitwastheministerialdutyofSheriffSuarintoimplementthewritofexecutionandthathewasmerelyfollowingalawfulorderofthe
court. This complaint was filed less than a month after his complaint against Judge Rosales was dismissed. Atty. Arnado must be sanctioned for filing this
[34]
unfoundedcomplaint.Althoughnopersonshouldbepenalizedfortheexerciseoftherighttolitigate,however,thisrightmustbeexercisedingoodfaith.
Asofficersofthecourt,lawyershavearesponsibilitytoassistintheproperadministrationofjustice.Theydonotdischargethisdutybyfilingfrivolouspetitions
thatonlyaddtotheworkloadofthejudiciary.
Alawyerispartofthemachineryintheadministrationofjustice.Likethecourtitself,heisaninstrumenttoadvanceitsendsthespeedy,efficient,impartial,
correct and inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of final judgments. A lawyer should not only help attain these objectives but should
likewiseavoidunethicalorimproperpracticesthatimpede,obstructorpreventtheirrealization,chargedasheiswiththeprimarytaskofassistinginthespeedyand
[35]
[36]
efficientadministrationofjustice.
Canon12
oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitypromulgatedonJune21,1988isveryexplicitthatlawyersmustexert
everyeffortandconsiderittheirdutytoassistinthespeedyandefficientadministrationofjustice.
[37]
In Retuya v. Gorduiz,
respondentlawyer was suspended for six (6) months for filing a groundless suit against a former client in order to harass and
embarrassher.Inthiscase,wefindthefineofP5,000.00,asrecommendedbyOCA,commensurateunderthecircumstances.
Thepracticeoflawisasacredandnobleprofession.Itislimitedtopersonsofgoodmoralcharacterwithspecialqualificationsdulyascertainedandcertified.
Therightdoesnotonlypresupposeinitspossessorintegrity,legalstandingandattainment,butalsotheexerciseofaspecialprivilege,highlypersonalandpartaking
[38]
ofthenatureofapublictrust.
Thus,alawyershouldnotusehisknowledgeoflawasaninstrumenttoharassapartynortomisusejudicialprocesses,asthe
[39]
sameconstitutesserioustransgressionoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
WHEREFORE,Atty.AudieC.ArnadoisFINEDintheamountofP5,000.00forfilinggroundlesssuit.HeisSTERNLYWARNEDthatarepetitionofthesameor
similaractwillbedealtwithmoreseverely.

SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Quisumbing,Carpio,andAzcuna,JJ.,concur.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

Rollo,pp.001007.
Id.at005.
Id.at029030.
Id.at029.
Id.at084086.
Id.at087.
Id.at104113.
Id.at118.
Id.at3233.

[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]

Id.at040.
Id.at33.
Id.at040.
Id.at018.
Id.at019.
Id.at018027.
Id.at024.
Id.at010015.

[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]

Id.at040.
Id.
Id.at041.
Id.
Id.at044.
Id.
Id.at035.
Id.
Id.at034035.
Id.at049.
DocketedasAdministrativeMatterOCAIPINo.031367MTJtitledAudieC.Arnadov.JudgeEdgemeloC.Rosales,MTCC,CebuCity,Branch8.
PerResolutiondated8September2003,Rollo,p.54.
Rollo,p.037.
Id.at038.
Id.at039.
Duduacov.JudgeLaquindanum,A.M.No.MTJ051601,11August2005.
Id.
Agpalo,CommentsontheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityandtheCodeofJudicialConduct,2004Edition,p.117.
Alawyershallexerteveryeffortandconsiderithisdutytoassistinthespeedyandefficientadministrationofjustice.
Adm.CaseNo.1388,28March1980,96SCRA526,529530.

[38]
[39]

Peoplev.Santocildes,Jr.,G.R.No.109149,21December1999,321SCRA310,316.
Re:AdministrativeCaseAgainstAtty.Occea,433Phil.138,156(2002).