Biscocho v. Marero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants, residents of Sitio Lower East Kamias, Cogeo II, Antipolo City, filed an administrative complaint against Cornelio C. Marero, Sheriff IV, for grave misconduct. The respondent sheriff implemented a Writ of Demolition issued in connection with RTC Civil Case No. 97-4486, entitled "Pepito Samson v. Ernesto Sarmiento, et al.," which resulted in the demolition of the complainants' houses. The complainants were not parties to the said civil case. Procedural History: The respondent denied the charges, claiming he was merely implementing a lawful order and that the complainants were illegally occupying the property. The complainants, in their Reply, alleged the decision in the civil case was erroneous and attached the Sheriff's Return to prove the respondent's ignorance of his duties. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the respondent guilty of violating the complainants' right to due process and recommended suspension and a fine. The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA's findings and recommendation. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed against the respondent sheriff for grave misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff committed grave misconduct in implementing the Writ of Demolition against individuals who were not parties to the civil case, thereby violating their right to due process.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Cornelio Marero, Sheriff IV, guilty of grave misconduct. He was suspended for six (6) months without pay and ordered to pay a fine of P10,000.00, with a warning that repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave misconduct and due process: The Court held that an ejectment suit is an action in personam, and a judgment therein is binding only upon parties properly impleaded and given an opportunity to be heard. While exceptions exist where non-parties may be bound (e.g., trespassers, agents of the defendant, transferees pendente lite), the complainants in this case did not fall under any of these exceptions. The respondent sheriff, in implementing the Writ of Demolition, included the complainants' houses despite them not being parties to the civil case, nor falling under any of the recognized exceptions. This action constituted an utter disregard for the complainants' right to due process of law. The Court emphasized that the dispositive portion of the decision and the writ of execution were specifically directed "against the defendants and all persons claiming rights under them." It was plain error for the respondent to implement the writ against individuals who were neither defendants nor derived property rights from the defendants. Such an error, when it results in the denial of fundamental rights, translates into grave misconduct. The respondent's contention that he merely implemented a lawful order was devoid of merit, as the implementation itself was unlawful due to its disregard for the parties bound by the judgment.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff who implements a writ of demolition against individuals not parties to the ejectment case, and who do not fall under any of the exceptions where non-parties may be bound, commits grave misconduct for violating their right to due process.