Ombud clears NLRC deputy sheriff from complaint

CEBU, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas cleared the deputy sheriff of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for criminal and administrative complaints citing that the cases are premature.

Graft investigator Luanne Ivy Cabatingan dismissed the complaints for graft, grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct filed against Edilberto Mondano.

“The cases are hereby dismissed outright, for failure to establish a prima facie case against herein respondent, and there being other adequate and appropriate remedy available to complainant in another judicial body,” evaluation report reads.

Cabatingan said before the office can act on the complaints filed against the respondent, the root must be settled first.

“Since it is the legality of the directives or issuances of voluntary arbitrator Florante Calipay that is primarily the root of the present controversy, as well as the legality or propriety of Calipay’s act of issuing such directives to respondent, these matters must be clearly settled first before the determination of alleged liability on the part of respondent,” reports further reads.

In his complaint, Roberto Dino, president of Unicraft Industries International Corporation (UIIC), alleged that respondent maliciously implemented and enforced the alias writ of execution despite being no longer part of the case.

The writ issued by Calipay was in relation to the case of Rafael Rondina vs. Unicraft Industries International Corporation (UIIC).

In order to stop the implementation of the writ, Dino said he wrote a letter to the respondent citing the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) and Supreme Court (SC) dropping his case.

He claimed the respondent still pursues the implementation of the writ by serving notices of garnishment to 14 banks. He added the actuations of the respondent shows “gross inexcusable negligence.”

Cabatingan ruled that based on her evaluation, she found out that the respondent only followed the directives of Calipay to continue with the implementation of the writ.

“The Supreme Court reiterated in several cases that this duty of a sheriff in the implementation of a writ of execution is ministerial, no matter how erroneous the writ is or should the same be later ruled illegal,” she said.

Cabatingan likewise cited jurisprudence stating the sheriff cannot be held liable for grave misconduct because it was his duty to implement the writ even if it would later be ruled as illegal.

She said the issuances made by Calipay should be settled first before complaint against respondent.

“Complainant’s resort to this Office appears to be premature. Not until there would be a final determination before the appropriate body or tribunal on the validity of the assailed issuances,” report reads.— (FREEMAN)