Court clerk cleared of admin charges

CEBU, Philippines - The Supreme Court has cleared clerk of court of the Court of Appeals Cebu City for an administrative complaint over an alleged issuance of irregular writ of execution.

Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno concurred with other justices found no “incompetence, inefficiency, negligence, ignorance of the law, or abuse of authority” on the part of lawyer May Faith Trumata-Rebotiaco when she issued the said writ.

Rebotiaco was assigned to the CA 18th division.

Reportedly, Rebotiaco addressed the writ solely to Government Service and Insurance System and excluded the appropriate officials and failed to direct a sheriff for the implementation of the writ.

In his complaint, retired Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Rodolfo Garcia of Calatrava-Toboso, Negros Occidental, asked for the dismissal of the respondent from service for being “incompetent” for the position.

He said earlier he filed a petition for mandamus before the CA against the GSIS and its officials Winston Garcia, Jessie Mauricio and Mila Santarroma to oblige them to pay in full the face value of his life insurance.

The court decided in his favor, ordering GSIS to pay Garcia the unpaid balance of his life insurance proceeds in the sum of P36,393.81.

Garcia said after the CA declared the decision final and executory he filed a motion to issue writ of execution, but he added the writ of execution was issued only after he filed his fourth motion).

Garcia alleged there was “unsuccessful enforcement of the writ”, prompting the failure of GSIS to pay him the amount. Likewise, the respondent failed to direct sheriff to implement the writ, Garcia said.

In her resolution, Sereno averred the writ of execution should base on the dispositive portion of the decision and not on the opinion of a court contained in the body of the decision.

“…It would be the dispositive portion that would be controlling, regardless of what was stated in the opinion. This principle is based on the theory that the dispositive portion is the final order, while the opinion is merely a statement ordering nothing,” the resolution read.

“A writ of execution would be rendered void if it is in excess of and beyond the original judgment or award spelled out in the dispositive portion of the decision,” it added.

Sereno said the respondent cannot be faulted for her failure to direct a sheriff for the implementation of the writ and addressed the writ solely to GSIS.

“As we reiterated in Viray v. Court of Appeals, the order of execution by a court is the foundation of a writ of execution,” she said.

Sereno added the only duty of the clerk of court was to issue a writ of execution in accordance with the dispositive portion of the court order.

“Accordingly, it is imperative that before the clerk of court can amend a writ of execution, the order of execution should first be amended,” resolution reads.

Meanwhile, the CA promulgated a resolution dated September 13, 2011 directing the 19th division to issue an alias writ of execution directing the GSIS officials of the Central Office in Pasay City to enforce the dispositive portion of the court order.

The executive judge of Regional Trial Court Pasay City was directed to designate a special sheriff to enforce the alias writ. –(FREEMAN)