Punio v. Go
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Alejandro Punio, son and attorney-in-fact of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 869), filed an administrative complaint against Judge Francisco J. Go and Sheriff Ruel T. Magcalas. The complaint stemmed from the respondent judge's refusal to issue a Writ of Demolition and the respondent sheriff's failure to implement a Writ of Execution in the said ejectment case. Procedural History: A judgment was rendered in Civil Case No. 869 in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to vacate the property, pay monthly compensation, and attorney's fees. The defendants filed a notice of appeal. The plaintiff moved for execution, and the records were elevated to the RTC, then returned to the MTC. The MTC granted the writ of execution. A motion to quash was filed by the defendants, which was opposed by the plaintiff. The sheriff reported that the writ was not enforced due to the defendants' refusal to vacate. The plaintiff's motion to cite defendants in contempt was denied. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Demolition, which was opposed by the defendants. The respondent judge deferred action on the motion for demolition until the termination of a separate case (Civil Case No. SC 2953) pending before the RTC, which involved an action for annulment of the plaintiff's title. The Petition: The complainant maintained that the judge's refusal to issue the Order of Demolition rendered the earlier decision nugatory. The respondent judge claimed he performed his duties and denied wrongdoing.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed an administrative offense by deferring the issuance of a writ of demolition. Whether the pendency of an action questioning ownership can abate an ejectment suit or bar the execution of the judgment therein.
Ruling
The administrative complaint against Sheriff Magcalas was dismissed for lack of merit. The administrative complaint against Judge Go was dismissed, but he was reprimanded with a warning against repetition of similar actions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the respondent judge's act of deferring the issuance of a writ of demolition: The Court found that the respondent judge erred in deferring the issuance of the order of demolition due to the pendency of Civil Case No. SC-2953 before the RTC of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. Section 8 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that in ejectment cases, execution shall issue immediately if judgment is rendered against the defendant. The Court's duty to order such execution is practically ministerial to avoid further injustice to a lawful possessor. The investigating judge found the respondent judge's act devoid of merit, reiterating that it is the trial court's ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution for the enforcement of a final and executory decision, even if the Presiding Judge entertained doubts as to its validity. However, despite this lapse in judgment, the Court held that it constituted merely an error in judgment for which the judge could not be held administratively liable absent any showing of malice, fraud, dishonesty, corruption, or bad faith. Nevertheless, the Court deemed it necessary to remind the respondent judge that as a member of the bench, he is duty-bound to keep abreast with the rules, laws, and precedents affecting his court duties and functions to avoid issuing erroneous orders and decisions. The Court agreed that the respondent judge's error in judgment merits a reprimand. On the issue of whether the pendency of an action questioning ownership can abate an ejectment suit or bar the execution of the judgment therein: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the pendency of an action questioning the ownership of property will not abate an ejectment suit nor bar the execution of the judgment therein. The rationale is that an ejectment suit involves only the issue of material possession or possession de facto, while an action for annulment of title involves the question of ownership. Therefore, even if there may be identity of parties and subject matter, the cause of action or the relief prayed for may differ, justifying the separate proceedings and the enforcement of the ejectment judgment.
Main Doctrine
A judge commits an error in judgment, but is not administratively liable for refusing to issue a writ of demolition based on the pendency of a separate case questioning ownership, if there is no showing of malice, fraud, dishonesty, corruption, or bad faith. However, such error warrants a reprimand and a warning against repetition.