Mendoza v. Doroni
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Manuel V. Mendoza filed an administrative complaint for misconduct and gross negligence against Sheriff IV Angel L. Doroni. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) rendered a decision in a forcible entry case in favor of complainant, ordering defendants to vacate and restore possession. The MeTC Sheriff successfully enforced the writ. Subsequently, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC decision, dismissing the forcible entry complaint but ordering defendants to pay P15,000.00 each to the owners of destroyed structures as financial assistance. The RTC denied complainant's motion for reconsideration and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution for its decision. Procedural History: The Branch Clerk of Court issued a writ of execution directing respondent sheriff to execute the RTC's decision. Respondent, accompanied by PNP, served the writ and issued a Certificate of Turn-Over of the property on November 11, 2003. Complainant asserted that respondent was guilty of misconduct and gross negligence for (1) enforcing the writ without a prior notice to vacate, (2) ejecting complainant despite the decision not providing for ejectment and placing a non-party (Genuino Ice Co.) in possession, (3) delivering possession of ice-making machines not included in the case, and (4) failing to enforce the money judgment for the owners of destroyed structures. Respondent denied the allegations, claiming the complaint was premature due to pending motions and that he acted in good faith. The RTC later denied complainant's motions and affirmed the writ of execution. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a fine of P10,000 for not fully implementing the writ. The Court docketed the case against respondent as a regular administrative matter. The Petition: The Court required complainant and respondent to manifest if they were willing to submit the case for decision based on pleadings. Respondent asked for an ocular inspection, which was denied. Complainant stated he was removed from actual possession of a portion of the land. Respondent submitted pictures and copies of court orders denying complainant's motions and petitions. The OCA re-evaluated and recommended penalizing respondent with a fine of P10,000 for violating Section 10(c), Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and for not enforcing the money judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent sheriff was guilty of misconduct and gross negligence for failing to serve a prior notice to vacate. Whether respondent sheriff was guilty of misconduct and gross negligence for failing to fully enforce the money judgment awarded to the owners of destroyed structures.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Angel L. Doroni guilty of misconduct and simple neglect of duty. He was fined P10,000.00 with a stern warning against repetition of similar acts.
Ratio Decidendi
On Respondent's Failure to Serve a Prior Notice to Vacate: The Court held that a sheriff's duty in executing a writ is purely ministerial, and strict compliance with the Rules of Court is mandatory. Section 10(c) of Rule 39 explicitly requires the sheriff to demand that the person against whom a judgment for delivery or restitution of real property is rendered, and all persons claiming rights under him, peacefully vacate the property within three (3) working days. Only after this period can the sheriff oust them. The Court found that respondent failed to serve any prior notice to vacate and immediately proceeded to oust complainant's employees on the same day the writ was handed to him. This immediate execution, without the required notice or expiry of the three-day period, constitutes a violation of Section 10(c), Rule 39, and is considered misconduct. The Court emphasized that immediacy of execution does not mean dispensing with the required notice or removal period, as the notice requirement is based on justice and fair play, and the law frowns upon arbitrariness. Respondent, as a sheriff, was expected to know this rule. On Respondent's Failure to Enforce the Money Judgment: The Court ruled that respondent's duty was to enforce the writ fully as ordered by the court. While the RTC ordered the defendants to pay P15,000.00 each to the owners of the four destroyed structures, respondent failed to collect this P60,000.00. His excuse that he could not locate the owners was deemed untenable. The Court pointed to Section 9 of Rule 39, which provides a remedy when the judgment obligee or their representative is not present to receive payment: the judgment obligor shall deliver the payment to the executing sheriff, who shall then turn over the amount to the clerk of court or deposit it in a fiduciary account. The Court stated that respondent should have collected the P60,000.00 from the defendants and deposited it, especially since the defendants themselves had prayed for the execution of the writ. By neglecting to collect and remit this amount, respondent failed to implement the writ fully, to the prejudice of the judgment creditors (owners of the structures) and undermined the judiciary's effort to render justice.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's duty in executing a writ is purely ministerial, and any deviation from the prescribed procedure under the Rules of Court constitutes misconduct warranting disciplinary action. Failure to serve a prior notice to vacate in ejectment cases and failure to fully enforce a money judgment are violations of procedural rules.