Lariosa v. Bandala
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Arsenia Lariosa charged respondent Judge Conrado B. Bandala and Sheriff Jaime P. Morta, Jr., with Grave Misconduct and Grave Abuse of Authority. Complainant alleged that on November 23, 1999, at around 3:00 AM, several men led by Estanislao Pasion, the plaintiff in a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 193), forced their way into her house, and respondent sheriff proceeded to demolish the place. Complainant claimed she and her husband were not defendants in the forcible entry case. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required the respondents to comment. Respondent Judge asserted that the decision in the forcible entry case had become final and executory after the dismissal of petitions by the Supreme Court. A writ of execution was issued on July 14, 1998. Sheriff Morta's return indicated service of the writ on individuals, including complainant's husband, who were occupying portions of the land by permission of the defendants in the forcible entry case. Due to the refusal of some defendants to vacate, a motion for a special order of demolition was granted. An alias writ of execution and a special order of demolition were issued on October 19, 1999, and September 15, 1999, respectively, giving occupants, including complainant, ten (10) days to vacate. Complainant personally acknowledged receipt of the notice of hearing and the alias writ of execution. Respondent Judge noted that complainant had sufficient time to vacate as demolition occurred on November 23, 1999, after she received the orders on October 28, 1999. The Petition: Complainant filed an affidavit-complaint against the judge and sheriff for grave misconduct and grave abuse of authority.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents Judge Conrado B. Bandala and Sheriff Jaime P. Morta, Jr., committed grave misconduct and grave abuse of authority in the execution of the writ of demolition. Whether complainant Arsenia Lariosa, not being a named defendant in the forcible entry case but a privy to the original defendants, should have been subjected to the writ of demolition.
Ruling
The Court dismissed the complaint against respondent Judge Conrado B. Bandala and Sheriff Jaime P. Morta, Jr., for being unmeritorious.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondents committed grave misconduct and grave abuse of authority: The Court found it difficult to agree with the OCA's conclusion. It noted that complainant Arsenia Lariosa and her husband, though not named defendants, were privies of the original defendants, Porfirio and Bienvenida Royo, as they occupied portions of the property by permission of said defendants. The spouses Lariosa were duly served with the court's order dated September 15, 1999, which declared them and others as privies and gave them ten (10) days to vacate. Complainant personally received copies of the court orders and the alias writ of execution. Instead of asserting any independent legal right, she chose to ignore the notice of hearing for the special order of demolition. Ejectment cases are summary in nature and require prompt action to address perturbations in social order. Therefore, respondent Judge acted within his authority in issuing the orders for the alias writ of execution and demolition. On whether complainant should have been subjected to the writ of demolition: The Court found no patent irregularity or arbitrariness on the part of respondent sheriff. While the demolition might have occurred at an "unholy hour," once a writ is placed in the sheriff's hands, it becomes his ministerial duty to execute it with reasonable celerity and promptness. Unless restrained by a court order, the sheriff is bound to ensure the execution of the judgment is not unduly delayed. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, a presumption exists that a sheriff acts in good faith in performing his official duties. The complainant was duly notified and given ample time to gather her belongings before the demolition commenced. Her husband even informed the deputy sheriff that they were prepared for the demolition.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's duty to execute a writ of demolition is ministerial, and in the absence of a court order restraining such execution, the sheriff is bound to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness. A presumption of good faith exists in the performance of official duties by a sheriff.