Kaw v. Anunciacion Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Alicia T. Kaw charged Judge Casiano P. Anunciacion Jr. and Sheriff Samuel A. Aribuabo with grave misconduct, incompetence, and partiality stemming from an ejectment case filed by Italy Marketing Corporation (IMC) against complainant's husband, George L. Kaw. George Kaw had leased a commercial property for over twenty years. After IMC acquired the building, it demanded Kaw vacate. Upon refusal, IMC filed an ejectment suit. Summons was served, and Kaw filed two motions for extension to file an answer, which the respondent judge did not act upon. The judge rendered a decision ordering Kaw to vacate and pay rentals, attorney's fees, and costs. This decision was affirmed by the RTC and the Court of Appeals. Procedural History: Complainant alleged that she and her husband received the decision on June 7, 1990, and the following day, a writ of execution was served, leading to their eviction and the seizure and auction sale of their personal properties. Complainant contended that the writ of execution was improperly issued without notice and that Sheriff Aribuabo was not authorized to enforce it. She also claimed the judge abused his discretion in fixing monthly rentals to bring the case within the Rule on Summary Procedure and evade proper docket fees. The Petition: The complainant filed a letter-complaint against the judge and the sheriff.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in fixing the monthly rental at P1,500.00. Whether the respondent judge erred in not acting on George Kaw's motions for extension to file an answer. Whether the respondent judge committed misconduct in issuing the writ of execution without prior notice to the adverse party. Whether the respondent judge committed grave misconduct in designating Sheriff Samuel Aribuabo as a special deputy sheriff. Whether Sheriff Samuel Aribuabo committed misconduct in the manner of enforcing the writ of execution.
Ruling
The Court found the respondent judge liable for issuing an order of execution without prior notice to the adverse party and for the improper designation of a special deputy sheriff. The Court also found Sheriff Aribuabo liable for the improper manner of enforcing the writ of execution. Consequently, both respondents were fined P10,000.00 each and warned against repetition of similar acts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of fixing the monthly rental at P1,500.00: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge. It noted that the Court of Appeals had already decided this issue in the appeal brought by complainant's husband. The appellate court held that the plaintiff (IMC) had no means of ascertaining the amount of rent in arrears, leaving the determination to the trial judge's discretion. The amount fixed (P1,500.00 monthly rent, totaling P19,500.00 for eleven months) kept the case within the P20,000.00 limit for the application of the Rules on Summary Procedure. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the amount of damages in unlawful detainer cases is immaterial for docket fees, which are a straight P100.00. On the inaction on George Kaw's motions for extension to file an answer: This allegation was found to be without merit. The Court reiterated that summons was duly served on George Kaw with a warning to file his Answer within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days under the Rule on Summary Procedure. Motions for extension of time to file an answer are prohibited pleadings under this Rule. Therefore, the judge would have been guilty of ignorance of the law had he granted such motions. On the issuance of the writ of execution without prior notice: The Court found the respondent judge liable for this act. While decisions in unlawful detainer cases are immediately executory, this does not negate the requirement of notice to the adverse party before execution can be ordered. The record showed that IMC filed an Ex Parte Motion for Execution on June 7, 1990, which was granted the same day, and the eviction occurred the following day. The Court emphasized that a party must be notified to be in a position to stay execution by filing a notice of appeal and a supersedeas bond, or by making periodic deposits of rentals. The ex parte nature of the motion highlighted the absence of notice. On the designation of a special deputy sheriff: Both the respondent judge and sheriff were found to have committed grave misconduct. The sheriff admitted he was not the assigned deputy sheriff. The writ of execution did not state that the regular deputy sheriff was absent or on leave. It appeared the judge designated the sheriff upon IMC's request, which was contrary to Administrative Circular No. 12, prohibiting the designation of a sheriff as a special deputy unless the regular deputy is absent or on leave. Allowing IMC to dictate who should implement the writ constituted grave misconduct. On the manner of enforcing the writ of execution: Sheriff Aribuabo was found liable for failing to give the spouses Kaw the requisite three to five days' notice to vacate before implementing the writ, enforcing it on the same day it was issued. Compounding this lapse, the sheriff levied upon tools and implements used in the bakery business, which are exempt from execution under Rule 39, Section 12(b). The Court noted that the sheriff could not have failed to notice that he was ejecting the Kaws from a bakery and that the levied items were business tools.
Main Doctrine
Issuance of a writ of execution without prior notice to the adverse party violates due process. Furthermore, the deputization of a sheriff must comply with administrative circulars, and the enforcement of a writ of ejectment must adhere to the prescribed notice and demand periods, with exemptions from execution being strictly observed.