Arevalo v. Loria
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants, residents of Sitio III, Campo 2, Brgy. Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City, charged Clerk of Court Celestina D. Rota and Sheriff Edgardo S. Loria with gross neglect of duty, gross dishonesty, and gross misconduct. The charges stemmed from the implementation of a writ of demolition in an ejectment case filed by Manila Paper Mills, Inc. against members of the Urban Poor United Neighborhood Association, Inc., and "any person claiming rights under them." Complainants averred they were not impleaded defendants and did not claim rights under the named defendants. Procedural History: The trial court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff corporation. A writ of execution was issued. A motion to defer the writ and include movants (herein complainants) as necessary parties was filed, seeking to question the writ. Subsequently, complainants filed an "Omnibus Motion to Withdraw" and to stop the sheriff. The trial court ruled the motion a prohibited pleading and ordered the issuance of a writ of demolition. Respondent Clerk of Court Rota issued the writ of demolition. Complainants filed motions for clarification and to recall the writ, averring plaintiff corporation connived with a defendant to implement the writ against them. On March 23, 2001, the court issued an order holding the demolition in abeyance. Complainants claimed respondent Loria implemented the writ on the same day and failed to issue a sheriff's return. They also assailed respondent Rota's failure to issue a certification of satisfaction despite pending motions. The Petition: Complainants charged Rota with gross neglect of duty, gross dishonesty, and gross misconduct for issuing a writ of demolition that varied the terms of the court's order and for failing to issue a certification of satisfaction. They charged Loria with gross neglect of duty for implementing the writ despite the order to hold it in abeyance and for failing to issue a sheriff's return. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Rota liable for issuing a writ that varied the terms of the court's order but dismissed other charges. It found Loria liable for failing to make a sheriff's return but not for implementing the writ.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Clerk of Court Celestina D. Rota was guilty of gross neglect of duty, gross dishonesty, and gross misconduct. Whether respondent Sheriff Edgardo S. Loria was guilty of gross neglect of duty.
Ruling
The Court found both respondents liable for neglect of duty. Respondent Celestina D. Rota was found liable for issuing a writ of demolition that varied the terms of the court's order, thereby usurping a judicial function. Respondent Edgardo S. Loria was found liable for failing to make a sheriff's return as required by law. Both were each fined P1,000.00 with a warning against similar infractions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of respondent Clerk of Court Celestina D. Rota's liability: The Court held that Rota was bound to issue the writ of demolition strictly in accordance with the tenor of the judgment sought to be executed. By varying the terms of the writ, Rota usurped a judicial function and was remiss in her duty. The dispositive portion of the court's order directed the demolition of improvements/structures of defendants mentioned in the decision, while the writ issued by Rota commanded the demolition of improvements/structures of "all persons refusing to vacate." This variation constituted neglect of duty. However, the Court noted that Rota's actuations were not motivated by malice or intent to cause damage, and the trial court's order itself did not squarely rule on who were covered by the term "all persons claiming rights under them," which might have led to the wording of the writ. The other charges against her were dismissed as unsubstantiated. On the issue of respondent Sheriff Edgardo S. Loria's liability: The Court found that Loria's duty in executing the writ was purely ministerial. Unless restrained by a court order, he was bound to implement the writ without undue delay. He could not be faulted for implementing the writ of demolition, as it behooved him to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate once it was placed in his hands. The Court also found that Loria could not be faulted for implementing the writ notwithstanding the order holding the same in abeyance, as he claimed to have implemented it before the order was prepared and signed, and there was no evidence he knew of the order. However, the Court found Loria liable for failing to make a sheriff's return pursuant to Section 14, Rule 39, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. His silence on the accusation of failing to make a return was considered an admission.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court who varies the terms of a writ of demolition from the dispositive portion of the court's order commits neglect of duty. A Sheriff is bound to implement a writ of demolition unless restrained by a court order, and their duty is ministerial in the absence of such restraint. However, failure to file a Sheriff's Return constitutes neglect of duty.