QC school asks SC to fire 3 ‘abusive’ sheriffs

The owner of Maria Montessori School of Quezon City has asked the Supreme Court administrator to dismiss three court sheriffs who tried to enforce a court order allowing suspected land-grabber Wilfredo S. Torres to take over a portion of the school property without due process.

Maritza L. Tecson, school president and directress, filed an administrative complaint against special sheriff Noel Lindo and assisting sheriffs Arnulfo Lim and Victor Amarillas, and asked for their immediate suspension or dismissal.

Tecson contended that the sheriffs committed grave misconduct by serving a notice to vacate and writ of possession on Montessori arising from a case filed by Torres against the Aliño couple in the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) that the school was not a party to.

“Clearly the actions of respondents constitute gross violation of the complainant’s rights and show their gross ignorance of the law and jurisprudence applicable to the case,” she said in the complaint she filed on September 8.

Torres is claiming ownership of 1,500 square meters of the 5,000-sq m Montessori, which at one point had to suspend classes for its more than 1,000 preschool, grade school and high school students because of the dispute.

Police cars

Tecson said the three sheriffs, backed by two police mobile cars, served a notice to vacate the premises at No. 116 Visayas Avenue on the afternoon of August 22 during dismissal time before “thousands of innocent schoolchildren, their parents, guardians and other people.”

She said that the notice to vacate and the writ of possession arose from a civil case filed by Torres against Manuel and Rosalina Aliño, Investment Underwriter Corp. of the Philippines and the register of deeds with the Quezon City RTC Branch 224 for the specific performance, cancellation of title, reconveyance and damages.

She, however, said that neither she nor the school was a party to the case.

Tecson said she was surprised when the notice was served on her because she was a holder of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 67372 and 121140 for the two parcels of land on which the school buildings are built. She was not also informed of the case while it was pending in court.

To stop the implementation of the notice and writ, Tecson filed a petition for injunction with the Court of Appeals and a motion to defer with RTC Branch 224 on August 24.

During a hearing on September 2, Tecson said her counsel learned that Torres had filed a motion for the appointment of a geodetic engineer to conduct a survey of the property, alleging the overlapping of existing titles.

Three conditions

Her counsel did not object to a survey of the seven parcels of land covered by the writ of possession on three conditions: that a status quo ante order be issued pending the survey and jurisdictional issues; that the survey be conducted by an independent geodetic engineer; and that should an overlapping of properties be shown, Torres must initiate a direct attack on third parties’ Torres titles.

That’s why it “came as a shock,” Tecson said, when the sheriffs arrived at the school on September 3, a Saturday, with a copy of a September 2 order granting the appointment of a geodetic engineer to survey the property, but not the issuance of a status quo ante order.

SWAT, bomb squad

The sheriffs again attempted to implement the notice and the writ at around 3 p.m. of Sept. 5, but failed “for lack of time.” The next day, the sheriffs, backed by more than 100 policemen (including Special Weapons and Tactics and bomb squad units) tried to implement a “break-open” order, but failed.

“Clearly, their intent was to intimidate the complainant into leaving the premises and/or giving in to the unlawful demands for money from the Torres group,” Tecson said.

She argued that the motion for the appointment of a geodetic engineer was a “clear, unmistakable and unquestionable admission” on the part of the sheriffs that there was a “question as to which properties, if at all, are to be the subject of any writ of possession.”

“Hence, prudence dictates that until the survey is done, respondents should not implement the notice to vacate and the writ of possession,” she said.

Tecson added that her two titles covered Lot No. 644-C, while Torres’ titles indicated Lot Nos. 644-A, 644-F, 644-G, 682, 690 and 644-B.

“Clearly, respondents should not be so insistent on implementing the notice to vacate and writ of possession against complainant, as a cursory reading of the titles of Wilfredo S. Torres vis-à-vis the titles of complainant clearly shows” that her property should not be the subject of the writ of possession and the notice to vacate, she said.

Tecson said the respondents were guilty of gross ignorance of the law, of clear and unmistakable bias for a party to a case before them and of grave misconduct.