Gonzales La'O & Co. v. Hatab
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Teresa T. Gonzales La'O & Co., Inc. was the winning party in an unlawful detainer case against Eduardo Vicente. The Metropolitan Trial Court's judgment was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 59, Makati, ordering the ouster of Vicente. A writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and a notice to vacate were issued on August 7 and 8, 1997, respectively. Vicente refused to surrender possession. Procedural History: Complainant filed a motion for execution pending appeal with the RTC, which was granted on September 1, 1997. Despite repeated follow-ups for about a month after the August 4, 1997 decision, respondent Sheriff Jadi T. Hatab failed to execute the judgment. Vicente filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Court of Appeals assailing the September 1, 1997 order, which was dismissed on October 9, 1997. The Petition: The administrative case arose from a verified complaint filed by complainant against respondent sheriff for grave misconduct due to his failure to execute the judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent sheriff is administratively liable for grave misconduct for delaying the execution of the RTC's judgment. Whether the pendency of a motion for reconsideration and the re-raffle of the case justify the sheriff's failure to execute the writ of execution.
Ruling
The Court agrees with the Office of the Court Administrator's recommendation that respondent sheriff be held administratively liable for grave misconduct. The Court DISMISSES respondent Sheriff Jadi T. Hatab from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to reinstatement or re-employment in any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of administrative liability for delaying execution: The Court held that respondent sheriff is administratively liable for grave misconduct. Section 21, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provides that the judgment of the Regional Trial Court in ejectment cases appealed to it shall be immediately executory. This provision differs from the 1964 Rules, where a defendant could prevent immediate execution by perfecting an appeal and making periodic deposits. The current rule mandates immediate execution, and the sheriff has no discretion in enforcing it. The Court emphasized that sheriffs play a crucial role in the administration of justice by executing final judgments, and failure to do so renders decisions empty victories for the prevailing parties. They must comply with their mandated ministerial duty to implement writs promptly and expeditiously, discharging their duties with due care and utmost diligence. On whether the pendency of a motion for reconsideration and re-raffle justifies the delay: The Court ruled that these claims do not justify the respondent's failure to enforce the writ of execution. When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate. He has no discretion whether or not to execute the judgment. The Court cited previous cases, such as Onquit vs. Binamira-Parcia and Villareal vs. Rarama, where failure to enforce writs was penalized. The Court further stated that the sheriff's folly in this case is no different from that in Moya vs. Bassig, where a deputy sheriff was dismissed for failing to enforce a writ of execution despite a pending appeal. The Court reiterated that officers charged with the enforcement of judgments must act with considerable dispatch in the absence of a restraining order, lest the decisions of the courts become futile.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff has no discretion whether or not to execute a judgment; it is his ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute the writ of execution. Failure to do so without valid reason constitutes grave misconduct.