Manalili v. Viesca
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An administrative complaint was filed against Deputy Sheriffs Danilo M. Viesca and Renato E. Robles for alleged irregularity during the execution of a demolition order in Civil Case No. 179 of the Municipal Court of Dinalupihan, Bataan. The incident involved the execution of a judgment promulgated more than 10 years old. Procedural History: The administrative complaint against the Deputy Sheriffs was dismissed. However, Acting Municipal Judge Vivencio A. Bantugan was required to explain why no administrative action should be taken against him for issuing an order to execute a judgment older than 10 years on a mere ex-parte motion, allegedly in violation of Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The Petition: Judge Bantugan explained that the order of demolition was subject to a certiorari and prohibition case (G.R. No. L-46452) which was dismissed for lack of merit. He argued that the judgment in the detainer case (rendered October 10, 1966) had already been executed within the five-year period from its entry, thus Section 6, Rule 39 did not apply. He also stated that the questioned order was issued in the exercise of jurisdiction and sound judicial discretion, and it was his duty to resolve the motion for demolition. The plaintiff's counsel filed an "Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Immediate Issuance of an order of Demolition" on January 12, 1977. Despite the ex-parte nature, the judge conducted a hearing on January 21, 1977, after notice to the parties. The resolution of the motion was deferred due to a request from the Office of the President regarding a protest lodged by the defendants. This protest was eventually dismissed for lack of merit, and the dismissal was filed with the court on April 22, 1977. A certification from the Department of Agrarian Reform confirming the adjudication was also filed on May 6, 1977. All these facts were made known to the complainants during a hearing on June 3, 1977. The Court noted that the sheriff's return filed on November 7, 1966, indicated that the judgment in the detainer case had already been executed within the five-year period.
Issue(s)
Whether Acting Municipal Judge Vivencio A. Bantugan committed an administrative offense in issuing an order to execute a judgment promulgated more than 10 years old on a mere ex-parte motion in violation of Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Whether the judgment in Civil Case No. 179 had already been executed within the five-year period from its entry.
Ruling
The Court found the explanation of Acting Judge Vivencio A. Bantugan satisfactory and ruled that no administrative action shall lie against him. The Court held that the order of demolition was not issued upon a mere ex-parte motion but after consideration of facts and circumstances brought out at a hearing. Furthermore, the judgment in the detainer case was shown to have been executed within the five-year period from its entry.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of issuing an order to execute a judgment promulgated more than 10 years old on a mere ex-parte motion in violation of Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court: The Court found Judge Bantugan's explanation satisfactory. It was clarified that the order of demolition was not issued solely on an ex-parte motion. Instead, a hearing was conducted on January 21, 1977, after proper notice to the parties and their counsel, despite the motion being labeled as "Urgent Ex-Parte." This indicates that the judge did not act summarily but afforded the parties an opportunity to be heard. The Court also noted that the resolution of the motion was deferred due to a request from the Office of the President concerning a protest filed by the defendants, and this protest was subsequently dismissed for lack of merit. The final adjudication of the protest was officially communicated to the court, and all these developments were made known to the parties during a subsequent hearing on June 3, 1977. Therefore, the issuance of the demolition order was a result of a process that included notice, hearing, and consideration of intervening events, rather than a mere ex-parte action. On whether the judgment in Civil Case No. 179 had already been executed within the five-year period from its entry: The Court found that the judgment rendered on October 10, 1966, in Civil Case No. 179 for illegal detainer had indeed been executed within the five-year period from its entry. This was evidenced by the sheriff's return filed before the Municipal Court of Dinalupihan, Bataan, on November 7, 1966. Consequently, Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which pertains to the execution of judgments after the lapse of five years, was not applicable in this instance. The Court cited Albetz Investments, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. to emphasize that the Municipal Court has full authority to order demolition to give effect to its judgment in an unlawful detainer case. The Court further clarified that the sheriff's duty includes ousting the defeated party and placing the winning party in possession, which may necessitate the removal of improvements upon a special order of the court after notice and hearing. The Court also referenced Section 14, Rule 39, and Commonwealth Act No. 39, highlighting that while a special order is needed for removing improvements, the law does not specify a period for carrying out the demolition order, acknowledging that factors may justify deferment. The existence of the G.R. No. L-46452 for certiorari and prohibition, which was dismissed, also played a role in the procedural history.
Main Doctrine
An order of demolition, even if initially sought via an ex-parte motion, may be validly issued after due notice and hearing, especially when the judgment sought to be executed is within the five-year period from entry and subsequent events, such as protests and appeals, have been resolved.