Clemente-de Guzman v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Salud Clemente-de Guzman charged Municipal Judge Tirso Y. Reyes with grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law for prematurely issuing a writ of execution. She also charged Deputy Sheriffs Pablo C. Iral and Rogelio T. Agay with irregularities in enforcing the writ. Complainant was a defendant in an ejectment suit decided in favor of the plaintiffs. The decision was affirmed on appeal by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan. Procedural History: The CFI remanded the records of the case, along with the mittimus, to the municipal court on December 14, 1979. On February 4, 1980, the respondent judge, upon motion of the plaintiff, issued a writ of execution, which the respondent sheriffs enforced on the same day. The Petition: Complainant alleged that the CFI decision had not yet become final because her counsel had not been notified, thus the writ of execution was premature. She also claimed the deputy sheriffs enforced the writ after office hours, employed threats and intimidation, collected an excess amount, and issued a non-official receipt.
Issue(s)
Whether the Municipal Judge committed grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law in issuing the writ of execution prematurely. Whether the deputy sheriffs committed irregularities in the enforcement of the writ of execution, specifically by enforcing it after office hours, employing threats and intimidation, collecting an excess amount, and issuing a non-official receipt.
Ruling
The charge against Municipal Judge Tirso Y. Reyes is dismissed. Deputy Sheriffs Pablo C. Iral and Rogelio T. Agay are admonished, with a warning that a repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge against Municipal Judge Tirso Y. Reyes: The Court found no legal basis for the charge. Upon the remand of the records together with the mittimus, the respondent judge was justified in considering the judgment of the appellate court as final. The mittimus signifies the finality of the appellate court's decision, and its transmittal to the originating court is predicated on this finality. Furthermore, the granting of a motion for execution of a final judgment is a ministerial duty of the court, and the prevailing party has a right to its immediate execution. The complainant's assertion that she or her counsel had not been notified of the CFI decision is irrelevant, as the duty of notification rests with the clerk of the CFI, not the respondent judge. The cited Rule 51, Section 11(2) of the Rules of Court regarding notice of receipt of records applies to the clerk of the CFI, not to the judge or clerk of the municipal court. Absent any specific rule imposing a duty on the respondent judge to notify parties of the receipt of records from the appellate court, the charge of capricious or malicious action cannot be sustained. On the charges against Deputy Sheriffs Pablo C. Iral and Rogelio T. Agay: The Court found the first three counts bereft of adequate basis for disciplinary action. Firstly, there is no rule prohibiting sheriffs from enforcing writs of execution on Saturdays or after office hours. Secondly, the charge of threats and intimidation was not sufficiently substantiated; the sheriffs' explanation that they were merely explaining their official duties and liabilities was uncontradicted. Thirdly, regarding the alleged overcollection, the records lacked sufficient and reliable data to determine the correct amount due, thus the charge was dismissed. However, the fourth count, concerning the failure to issue an official receipt, was admitted by the respondents. They acknowledged issuing a private receipt because they did not expect the levy to be successful and did not bring official receipts. This violated Section 113 of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual. Nevertheless, the Court considered the fact that the collected amount was turned over to the judgment creditor as an extenuating circumstance, leading to an admonition rather than a more severe penalty.
Main Doctrine
A municipal judge is justified in considering a judgment final upon the remand of the records together with the mittimus, and the issuance of a writ of execution thereafter is a ministerial duty. Deputy sheriffs are admonished for failing to issue an official receipt for collections made, but are not disciplined for enforcing writs after office hours or for alleged intimidation if unsubstantiated.