FIRST DIVISION
[ Adm. Matter No. P-15, July 17, 1975 ]
ALFONSO GUEVARRA, ET AL., COMPLAINANTS, VS. EULALIO JUANSON, RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
CASTRO, J.:
By virtue of a writ of execution issued by the City Court of Manila, Branch VIII, in its civil case 179318, the above-named respondent, Eulalio C. Juanson, Deputy Sheriff of Rizal, levied upon certain chattels which he found in the residence of the
judgment-debtor, Eugenio Guevarra, and subsequently set the public auction thereof for May 31, 1972. However, the complainants, the spouses Alfonso Guevarra and Clarissa Victoriano, and the spouses Ambrosio Trias and Eloisa Pinzon on May 26, 1972 filed a replevin suit with
the City Court of Cavite, docketed therein as civil case 1514, for recovery of the said personal properties. Whereupon the respondent Juanson re-set the auction sale for July 3, 1972.
On June 22, 1972 the City Court of Cavite dismissed the replevin suit; on June 29 the complainants (therein plaintiffs) moved to reconsider, notifying the defendants' counsel that the motion for reconsideration would be submitted on July 11, 1972 for the court's action; they likewise filed with the office of the Provincial Sheriff at Makati, Rizal (not with a court) a motion to suspend the sale until the Cavite court shall have resolved their motion for reconsideration. (Annex L, rollo, p. 55)
Because the respondent sheriff received no restraining order, he proceeded with the auction sale on July 3, 1972. On July 12, 1972 the court denied reconsideration of the order dismissing the replevin suit. For thus selling the personal properties without awaiting resolution of the motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal, the respondent sheriff is now charged in the present administrative complaint with grave abuse of authority and negligence in the performance of his duties.
The facts recited above do not make out a case against the respondent, and, in view of the subsequent denial of their motion for reconsideration, the complainants suffered no prejudice resulting from the auction sale on July 3, 1972. The respondent did not abuse his authority and neglected none of his duties. At the time he sold the properties by virtue of the Manila court's writ of execution, notwithstanding the pendency of the motion for reconsideration in the Cavite court, there was no legal impediment to the scheduled sale, the complainants having failed to obtain an order enjoining or suspending the sale. Still, as a precautionary measure, it would have been the better part of prudence had the respondent, before proceeding with the auction sale, (1) first checked with the Cavite court what action, if any, had been taken on the complainants' motion for reconsideration and (2) also inquired from the Manila court whether a motion to suspend the sale had been filed or not and the action taken thereon, if any.
ACCORDINGLY, the respondent sheriff is exonerated of the charges and the complaint is hereby dismissed.
Makasiar, Esguerra, Munoz Palma, and Martin, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., is on leave.
EN BANC
[July 18,1975]
In Re PEDRO A. AMPARO (1974 Bar Candidate) RESOLUTION
CASTRO, J.:
Pedro A.Amparo of Guindulman, Bohol filed a petition to take the 1974 Bar exeminations. This petition was granted.
In the afternoon of December 1, 1974 he was at his assigned seat no. 17, room 401, fourth floor, Manuel L. Quezon University Building on R. Hidalgo, Manila. The Bar examination that afternoon was in Criminal Law.
While the exemination was in progress, the headwatcher in room 401, Lilian Mendigorin, reported that examinee Amparo was found reading, at approximately 3:15 o'clock, a piece of paper containing notes in Criminal Law. He at first refused to surrender the paper, but later gave it to Mendigorin when she threatened to report the matter to the authorities. A verbal report was relayed to the Bar Chairman who forthwith gave instructions that no investigation be then made in order to forestall any commotion that might disturb the other candidates. Amparo was permitted to continue answering the questions. Headwatcher Mendigorin thereafter submitted a special report on the incident.
On the following day, Clerk of Court Romeo Mendoza filed a formal report. Acting thereon, the Court en banc, on December 3, 1974, unanimously resolved "to disqualify Pedro Amparo from taking the Bar examinations still to be given, namely, in the subjects of Remedial Law and Labor and Social Legislation, on Sunday, December 8, 1974, without prejudice to allowing him to take the Bar examination after this year."
In a letter dated December 5, 1974, Amparo requested that "before final action is or becomes effective" he "be given a chance to explain" his side. On December 5, 1974 the Court reconsidered its prior resolution and allowed Amparo to take the Bar examinations on the coming Sunday, December 8, 1974, without prejudice to further action by the Court after a formal and more detailed investigation of the incident.
As ordered, the Clerk of Court conducted an investigation on December 9, 1974 at which the respondent Amparo (a) appeared in his own behalf, (b) cross-examined the witnesses against him, (c) presented himself as his own witness, and (d) presented as his witnesses three Bar candidates who in the afternoon of December 1 were seated near him in the examination room.
At the investigation, headwatcher Mendigorin identified Amparo as the Bar examinee whom she saw reading a piece of paper inside the examination room in the course of the examination in Criminal Law. The piece of paper, later marked as exhibit C, contains handwritten notes, on both sides, on the durations of penalties and a formula of computing them, particularly reclusion temporal. Mendigorin testified that she approached Amparo and asked for the piece of paper; that he refused and put the paper in his pocket; that when she approached him a second time, he fished the paper from his pocket and gave it to her; that when, at the end of the examination period, Amparo submitted his examination notebook, he told her that he really had intended to cheat. On cross-examination, she elaborated that Amparo gave the piece of paper only when she told him that she would bring the matter up to higher authority.
Vernon B. Vasquez, a watcher under head watcher Mendigorin, corroborated the latter's testimony. He declared that from a distance of five meters, he saw Amparo reading a piece of paper on his lap; that he wanted to approach him but his headwatcher was already ahead of him; and that Amparo thereupon placed the paper in his pocket, but when Mendigorin threatened to report the matter, Amparo yielded exhibit C with a smile.In his testimony, Amparo admitted having in his possession, in the course of the examination, the piece of paper, exhibit C, explaining that because he was perspiring, he took his handkerchief from his pocket, and out also came the piece of paper which fell to the floor; that the notes were not in his handwriting as they were given by a friend, and that it was by accident that he picked up the paper to find out what it was, as he had forgotten about it, but had no intention to use it; that while he was reading it, the headwatcher saw him and demanded it from him, but he refused because he thought that he might need it for "future reference," but when the headwatcher insisted as otherwise she would report the matter to her supervisor, Amparo surrendered the paper. On cross-examination, he declared that exhibit C had been in his pocket a long time before December 3; that he had not changed his pants for three weeks; that when the first beel rang for the examination in Criminal Law, he was required to put "all his things" out of the room; that he forgot about the paper inside his pocket; that when he took out his handkerchief to wipe his perspiration, the paper fell to the floor, and he wondered what it was and then recalled upon reading it that it had been given by a friend; and that as he was reading it, "that diligent headwatcher came and asked for that paper." He further admitted that he knew it is contrary to the rules to bring notes and books inside the examination room.
Bar candidates Jovencio Fajilan, Norman M. Balagtas and Apolinario O. Calix, Sr., who were seated near Amparo in room 401, were presented by the respondent as his witnesses, but all of them professed lack of knowledge about the incident as they were engrossed in answering the examination questions.
It is clear that Amparo, in the course of the examination in Criminal Law, had possession of the piece of paper containing notes on the durations of penalties and that he knew then it is contrary to the rules to bring notes and books inside the examination room. It thus results that he knowingly violated Section 10, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which pertinently provides that "Persons taking the examination shall not bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms."
Amparo's impression that the notes had not "material use" to him is correct, in the sense that they bore no reference to any question asked in the examination in Criminal Law; even so he committed on overact indicative of an attempt to cheat by reading the notes. His refusal to surrender the paper containing the notes when first demanded; his eventual surrender of it only after he was informed that he would be reported; and the facts that the notes pertained to Criminal Law and the examination was then in Criminal Law all these override and rebut his explanation that he merely read the notes to find out what they were as he had forgotten about them.
We find the respondent Amparo guilty of (1) bringing notes into the examination room and (2) attempted cheating.
According to the official report of the Bar Confidant, approved by the Court, Amparo did not pass the 1974 Bar examination.
ACCORDINGLY, it is the sense of the Court that Pedro A. Amparo should be as he is hereby disqualified room taking the Bar examinations for the year 1975.
Makalintal, C.J., Fernando, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Muhoz Palma, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Martin, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., is on leave.
On June 22, 1972 the City Court of Cavite dismissed the replevin suit; on June 29 the complainants (therein plaintiffs) moved to reconsider, notifying the defendants' counsel that the motion for reconsideration would be submitted on July 11, 1972 for the court's action; they likewise filed with the office of the Provincial Sheriff at Makati, Rizal (not with a court) a motion to suspend the sale until the Cavite court shall have resolved their motion for reconsideration. (Annex L, rollo, p. 55)
Because the respondent sheriff received no restraining order, he proceeded with the auction sale on July 3, 1972. On July 12, 1972 the court denied reconsideration of the order dismissing the replevin suit. For thus selling the personal properties without awaiting resolution of the motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal, the respondent sheriff is now charged in the present administrative complaint with grave abuse of authority and negligence in the performance of his duties.
The facts recited above do not make out a case against the respondent, and, in view of the subsequent denial of their motion for reconsideration, the complainants suffered no prejudice resulting from the auction sale on July 3, 1972. The respondent did not abuse his authority and neglected none of his duties. At the time he sold the properties by virtue of the Manila court's writ of execution, notwithstanding the pendency of the motion for reconsideration in the Cavite court, there was no legal impediment to the scheduled sale, the complainants having failed to obtain an order enjoining or suspending the sale. Still, as a precautionary measure, it would have been the better part of prudence had the respondent, before proceeding with the auction sale, (1) first checked with the Cavite court what action, if any, had been taken on the complainants' motion for reconsideration and (2) also inquired from the Manila court whether a motion to suspend the sale had been filed or not and the action taken thereon, if any.
ACCORDINGLY, the respondent sheriff is exonerated of the charges and the complaint is hereby dismissed.
Makasiar, Esguerra, Munoz Palma, and Martin, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., is on leave.
[July 18,1975]
In Re PEDRO A. AMPARO (1974 Bar Candidate) RESOLUTION
Pedro A.Amparo of Guindulman, Bohol filed a petition to take the 1974 Bar exeminations. This petition was granted.
In the afternoon of December 1, 1974 he was at his assigned seat no. 17, room 401, fourth floor, Manuel L. Quezon University Building on R. Hidalgo, Manila. The Bar examination that afternoon was in Criminal Law.
While the exemination was in progress, the headwatcher in room 401, Lilian Mendigorin, reported that examinee Amparo was found reading, at approximately 3:15 o'clock, a piece of paper containing notes in Criminal Law. He at first refused to surrender the paper, but later gave it to Mendigorin when she threatened to report the matter to the authorities. A verbal report was relayed to the Bar Chairman who forthwith gave instructions that no investigation be then made in order to forestall any commotion that might disturb the other candidates. Amparo was permitted to continue answering the questions. Headwatcher Mendigorin thereafter submitted a special report on the incident.
On the following day, Clerk of Court Romeo Mendoza filed a formal report. Acting thereon, the Court en banc, on December 3, 1974, unanimously resolved "to disqualify Pedro Amparo from taking the Bar examinations still to be given, namely, in the subjects of Remedial Law and Labor and Social Legislation, on Sunday, December 8, 1974, without prejudice to allowing him to take the Bar examination after this year."
In a letter dated December 5, 1974, Amparo requested that "before final action is or becomes effective" he "be given a chance to explain" his side. On December 5, 1974 the Court reconsidered its prior resolution and allowed Amparo to take the Bar examinations on the coming Sunday, December 8, 1974, without prejudice to further action by the Court after a formal and more detailed investigation of the incident.
As ordered, the Clerk of Court conducted an investigation on December 9, 1974 at which the respondent Amparo (a) appeared in his own behalf, (b) cross-examined the witnesses against him, (c) presented himself as his own witness, and (d) presented as his witnesses three Bar candidates who in the afternoon of December 1 were seated near him in the examination room.
At the investigation, headwatcher Mendigorin identified Amparo as the Bar examinee whom she saw reading a piece of paper inside the examination room in the course of the examination in Criminal Law. The piece of paper, later marked as exhibit C, contains handwritten notes, on both sides, on the durations of penalties and a formula of computing them, particularly reclusion temporal. Mendigorin testified that she approached Amparo and asked for the piece of paper; that he refused and put the paper in his pocket; that when she approached him a second time, he fished the paper from his pocket and gave it to her; that when, at the end of the examination period, Amparo submitted his examination notebook, he told her that he really had intended to cheat. On cross-examination, she elaborated that Amparo gave the piece of paper only when she told him that she would bring the matter up to higher authority.
Vernon B. Vasquez, a watcher under head watcher Mendigorin, corroborated the latter's testimony. He declared that from a distance of five meters, he saw Amparo reading a piece of paper on his lap; that he wanted to approach him but his headwatcher was already ahead of him; and that Amparo thereupon placed the paper in his pocket, but when Mendigorin threatened to report the matter, Amparo yielded exhibit C with a smile.In his testimony, Amparo admitted having in his possession, in the course of the examination, the piece of paper, exhibit C, explaining that because he was perspiring, he took his handkerchief from his pocket, and out also came the piece of paper which fell to the floor; that the notes were not in his handwriting as they were given by a friend, and that it was by accident that he picked up the paper to find out what it was, as he had forgotten about it, but had no intention to use it; that while he was reading it, the headwatcher saw him and demanded it from him, but he refused because he thought that he might need it for "future reference," but when the headwatcher insisted as otherwise she would report the matter to her supervisor, Amparo surrendered the paper. On cross-examination, he declared that exhibit C had been in his pocket a long time before December 3; that he had not changed his pants for three weeks; that when the first beel rang for the examination in Criminal Law, he was required to put "all his things" out of the room; that he forgot about the paper inside his pocket; that when he took out his handkerchief to wipe his perspiration, the paper fell to the floor, and he wondered what it was and then recalled upon reading it that it had been given by a friend; and that as he was reading it, "that diligent headwatcher came and asked for that paper." He further admitted that he knew it is contrary to the rules to bring notes and books inside the examination room.
Bar candidates Jovencio Fajilan, Norman M. Balagtas and Apolinario O. Calix, Sr., who were seated near Amparo in room 401, were presented by the respondent as his witnesses, but all of them professed lack of knowledge about the incident as they were engrossed in answering the examination questions.
It is clear that Amparo, in the course of the examination in Criminal Law, had possession of the piece of paper containing notes on the durations of penalties and that he knew then it is contrary to the rules to bring notes and books inside the examination room. It thus results that he knowingly violated Section 10, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which pertinently provides that "Persons taking the examination shall not bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms."
Amparo's impression that the notes had not "material use" to him is correct, in the sense that they bore no reference to any question asked in the examination in Criminal Law; even so he committed on overact indicative of an attempt to cheat by reading the notes. His refusal to surrender the paper containing the notes when first demanded; his eventual surrender of it only after he was informed that he would be reported; and the facts that the notes pertained to Criminal Law and the examination was then in Criminal Law all these override and rebut his explanation that he merely read the notes to find out what they were as he had forgotten about them.
We find the respondent Amparo guilty of (1) bringing notes into the examination room and (2) attempted cheating.
According to the official report of the Bar Confidant, approved by the Court, Amparo did not pass the 1974 Bar examination.
ACCORDINGLY, it is the sense of the Court that Pedro A. Amparo should be as he is hereby disqualified room taking the Bar examinations for the year 1975.
Makalintal, C.J., Fernando, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Muhoz Palma, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Martin, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., is on leave.