Juvida v. Serapio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A civil case for ejectment (Civil Case No. 17713) was decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Caloocan City, ordering the defendants, spouses Leopoldo and Natividad Dipad, to vacate the property of Soledad Bautista. This decision was affirmed in toto by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 127, presided over by respondent Judge Manuel Serapio, in Civil Case No. C-12559. Procedural History: The defendants moved for reconsideration, which was denied. A writ of execution was issued, and the respondent Deputy Sheriff served a notice to vacate. The defendants filed a motion to lift the order of execution, which was denied. Another order directed the substitution of the deceased plaintiff, Soledad Bautista, by her legal heirs. The defendant spouses attempted to seek relief from the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review and certiorari, but their motion for extension was denied, and their case was dismissed. Despite these setbacks for the defendants, entry of judgment in the CA was not made, causing further delay in the execution of the ejectment judgment. The Petition: Complainant Amelia B. Juvida, daughter of the deceased plaintiff, filed two administrative cases. The first (A.M. No. RTJ-87-73) was for the respondent judge's alleged failure to decide the ejectment case within the 90-day period, which was rendered moot by the judge's promulgation of the decision. The second, the present case (A.M. No. RTJ-87-98), accused Judge Serapio and Deputy Sheriff Virgilio Soriano of failing to execute the judgment despite payment of sheriff's fees and alleged receipt of money by the judge from the defendants. A criminal complaint was also filed but dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The respondents denied the charges, attributing the delay to the defendants' procedural remedies.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents Judge Manuel Serapio and Deputy Sheriff Virgilio Soriano committed misconduct in failing to execute the ejectment judgment; and whether the delay in the execution of the judgment was solely attributable to the respondents. Whether respondent Judge Serapio received money from the defendants in the ejectment case other than official fees. Whether Deputy Sheriff Virgilio Soriano received any money in relation to the execution of judgment other than or in excess of that authorized by law; and the overall merit of the complaint.
Ruling
The Court Resolved to DISMISS the complaint for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of failure to execute the judgment and delay in execution: The Court found that no misconduct could be attributed to the respondents. The delay in the execution of the judgment was adequately established to be due to the several procedural steps taken by the defendants, despite the complainant's contrary notion. The Investigating Justice correctly pointed out that the defendants could not be deprived of statutory due process or their rights thereto. The respondents' actions were consistent with the procedural remedies available to the losing parties, and the execution could only proceed after the final resolution of these remedies, including the dismissal of their petition before the Court of Appeals. On the issue of alleged receipt of money by the judge: The Court found no evidence worthy of the name presented to warrant any finding of dishonesty or evil design on the part of the respondent judge. The respondents denied receiving money from any party other than by way of official fees. The complainant failed to present sufficient proof to substantiate this serious allegation against the judge. On the issue of misconduct by the deputy sheriff and the overall merit of the complaint: As regards Deputy Sheriff Virgilio Soriano, the Court found no proof of the requisite degree of persuasion to establish his having received any money in relation to the execution of judgment other than or in excess of that authorized by law. The complainant alleged payment of sheriff's fees, but failed to show that the sheriff acted improperly or received amounts beyond what was legally due. The Court concluded that the complaint had no adequate evidentiary foundation from the beginning. It was suggested that the complainant or her attorney could have easily ascertained this by exercising diligence in perusing the relevant records, which would have obviated the need for the respondents to undergo investigation and the consequent waste of time.
Main Doctrine
Dismissal of administrative complaint against a judge and deputy sheriff due to lack of merit and insufficient evidence, where delays in execution were attributable to procedural remedies availed of by the losing parties and no proof of misconduct or illegal receipt of money was established.