Morta, Sr. v. Sañez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This administrative case arose from a complaint filed by Jaime Morta, Sr., and Donald Morga, who were the defendants in Civil Case No. 962, an unlawful detainer action initiated by Josefina Baraclan. The original complaint sought to have the defendants vacate Lots Nos. 991 and 997 in Guinobatan, Albay, and to pay damages and costs. The defendants' residential houses were situated on these lots. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to vacate. This decision was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Ligao, Albay, upon appeal. Subsequently, the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals. While the appeal was pending, the plaintiff filed a motion for execution pending appeal, which was granted by the RTC. A writ of execution was issued, and despite the defendants' opposition and a motion to lift the writ, it was upheld. Following this, a motion for a writ of demolition was filed, which was also granted by the respondent judge, Judge Jose S. Sañez, leading to the demolition of the defendants' houses. The defendants' subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by Judge Sañez. The Petition: The complainants, as defendants in the underlying civil case, filed this administrative complaint against Judge Sañez and Sheriff Angel Conejero. They alleged that the writ of execution and demolition were issued in violation of procedural rules, specifically Sections 4 and 6 of Rule 15, requiring prior notice and hearing, and Section 10(d) of Rule 39, which mandates a special order for demolition of improvements. They further contended that the demolished houses were family homes, exempt from execution under Article 155 of the Family Code. Allegations against the sheriff included failure to make an inventory of demolished materials, issue receipts, submit cost estimates for court approval, and obtain a special order for demolition.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority in issuing the writ of demolition without a special order from the court, after due hearing, and without fixing a reasonable time for the complainants to remove their houses. Whether the respondent sheriff committed abuse of authority, misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law in implementing the writ of demolition, including failure to make an inventory of demolished materials, issue official receipts, and submit cost estimates for court approval.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Judge Jose S. Sañez guilty of abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law, imposing a fine of P5,000.00. Respondent Sheriff Angel Conejero was found guilty of abuse of authority, misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law, and was suspended for one month without pay. Both were warned against repetition of similar acts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the respondent judge's issuance of the writ of demolition: The Court upheld the OCA's finding that respondent judge gravely abused his authority when he issued the order of demolition in question in utter disregard of pertinent rules, specifically Section 10(d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. This provision clearly states that when property subject to execution contains improvements, the officer shall not destroy, demolish, or remove them except upon a special order of the court, issued after due hearing and after the judgment obligor has failed to remove them within a reasonable time fixed by the court. The respondent judge admitted that no special order was issued and did not dispute that no hearing was conducted. His contention that the procedural error was cured by the denial of the motion for reconsideration was untenable, as the denial did not cure the fundamental defect of issuing the demolition order without the requisite special order and without fixing a reasonable time for the complainants to remove their houses. The Court reiterated that when a party refuses to yield possession as ordered by a writ of execution, the sheriff must oust the deforciant, and if demolition is necessary, there must be a hearing, upon motion and with due notice, for the issuance of a special order. The exception where a "break-open" order is not needed is only when there is no occupant in the premises, which was not the case here. On the issue of the respondent sheriff's liability: The OCA found the sheriff liable for grave abuse of authority, incompetence, and misconduct for his failure to make an inventory of the demolished materials and issue official receipts therefor, as well as for his failure to submit for court approval a rough estimate of the cost of execution and demolition. The sheriff's explanation that he made an informal inventory in the presence of the Barangay Captain was rejected, as his professionalism was questionable for failing to make a formal inventory and issue receipts to the complainants who owned the materials. Furthermore, he admitted to giving the original rough estimate of costs to the plaintiff's lawyer but not to the court for approval, despite having a duplicate copy. The Court cited Miro vs. Tan to emphasize that a sheriff is duty-bound to know the basic rules relative to the implementation of writs, including the elementary requirement of submitting cost or rough estimates for court approval, and that failure to do so could be due to forgetfulness or deliberate intent to advance personal interest.
Main Doctrine
A judge commits grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law when issuing a writ of demolition without a special order from the court, after due hearing, and without fixing a reasonable time for the judgment obligor to remove improvements, in violation of Section 10(d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. A sheriff is liable for abuse of authority, misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law for failing to make an inventory of demolished materials, issue receipts, and submit a rough estimate of costs for court approval.