Santos v. Valino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Dr. Quintin de Dios Santos was ordered to vacate a lot in an ejectment suit. This decision, rendered in 1963, was affirmed by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. An order of demolition was issued on September 18, 1972. The respondent, Deputy Sheriff Alberto A. Valino, gave the complainant one week to vacate. Procedural History: On December 13, 1972, another order directed the Sheriff to immediately enforce the demolition. Respondent notified complainant on December 27, 1972, that demolition would occur on December 29, 1972. Demolition began on December 29, 1972, but was unfinished. On January 2, 1973, the court granted complainant thirty (30) days from January 27, 1973, to voluntarily demolish his improvements. Complainant subsequently sold his house. The Petition: Complainant filed an administrative complaint against the respondent, alleging injudicious implementation of the demolition order, particularly for proceeding during the Christmas holidays and while a motion to hold it in abeyance was pending.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Alberto A. Valino acted injudiciously in implementing the order of demolition on December 29, 1972, at the peak of the Christmas holidays, knowing that a motion for abeyance was pending before the court.
Ruling
The administrative complaint against respondent Alberto A. Valino is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court concurred with the findings of Judge Carolina C. Griño-Aquino that Deputy Sheriff Valino did not act injudiciously in implementing the order of demolition. The Court emphasized that a sheriff is a ministerial officer, and when the terms of a writ or order for execution are clear, his duty is to enforce it without delay and without room for the exercise of discretion on his part. While acknowledging that Valino, "in the spirit of Christmas, could have postponed until after New Year's Day the implementation of the order of demolition without much damage or prejudice to the plaintiff," the Court found that he merely followed "the letter and spirit of the order of the Court, as well as the advice of his immediate chief, Provincial Sheriff Salaysay." The Court stressed that the execution of a lawful writ cannot be postponed by the mere filing of a motion to hold it in abeyance, as such tactics would frustrate and delay the execution of final judgments. The complainant De Dios had already deprived the heirs of Nieves Tuason of possession for nearly ten years through such means, and his own intransigence led to the final implementation during the holidays. Valino committed no abuse since the order had not been countermanded or recalled by the court that issued it up to the time of enforcement.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff, being a ministerial officer, must enforce clear writs and orders without discretion. Delaying execution based on personal considerations or pending motions, without court order, may constitute injudicious action, but adherence to the court's mandate, even during holidays, is not an abuse if the order remains uncountermanded.