Collado v. Sevidal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Rufino and Estela Austria mortgaged a parcel of land to PNB. Upon failure to comply with the mortgage terms, PNB foreclosed the mortgage extrajudicially. PNB became the highest bidder, and ownership was consolidated in its name. PNB filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession, which was granted by the RTC. The writ ordered the mortgagors and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the premises. As some occupants failed to vacate, PNB moved for a writ of demolition, which was issued. Respondent Sheriff Adonis L. Sevidal served the writ of demolition. During the execution, a relocation survey revealed that a portion of complainant Ruth A. Collado's concrete fence and a portion of her brother's house encroached on the foreclosed lot. Respondent Sheriff proceeded to demolish these structures over complainant's objections, who insisted they were within her adjoining lot. Procedural History: Complainant Ruth A. Collado filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Adonis L. Sevidal for serious misconduct and violation of Republic Act No. 3019. The Office of the Court Administrator found respondent liable for simple misconduct and recommended a fine of P5,000.00. The Petition: The administrative complaint charged the respondent sheriff with exceeding his authority by maliciously and unlawfully demolishing complainant's concrete fence and destroying/ransacking her brother's house, alleging denial of due process as neither she nor her brother were parties to the original petition for a writ of possession.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Sheriff exceeded and violated his authority by demolishing the complainant's concrete fence and her brother's house. Whether the complainant was denied due process.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent Sheriff liable for simple misconduct. He was ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00 with a warning that future similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Court affirmed the findings and recommendation of the Court Administrator.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Sheriff exceeded and violated his authority by demolishing the complainant's concrete fence and her brother's house: The Court held that the respondent Sheriff exceeded his authority. The writ of possession and the subsequent writ of demolition were directed against the mortgagors, Rufino and Estela Austria, and "all persons claiming rights under them and those acting under their direction and control." The complainant and her brother were occupying a portion of Lot No. 3544 adversely to the spouses Austria, claiming that their structures were on their own adjoining lot, Lot No. 3557. Therefore, they were not parties to the original petition (S.P. No. 2003-0132-D) nor were they claiming rights under the spouses Austria. As a sheriff entrusted with the execution of judgments, respondent should have known that the writs were not enforceable against the complainant. His duty was to ensure that only that portion of the decision ordained in the dispositive part was subject to execution. The general terms of the writ of demolition, directing the removal of "all structures and any other improvements found [on Lot No. 3544]," did not grant him license to demolish structures not covered by the original judgment. He was bound to act with prudence and caution and to read the writ in light of the dispositive portion of the decision he was executing, not apart from it. The Court noted that the respondent was cavalier in implementing the writ, as the relocation survey was conducted only on the day of the demolition, and prior to that, it was not known that the structures encroached on Lot No. 3544. He failed to send the complainant or her brother a notice of the writ of possession, and demand to vacate was made only after the encroachment was discovered. The appropriate course of action should have been to inform the judge of the situation via a partial Sheriff's return and await instructions, which he failed to do. This failure rendered him liable for simple misconduct, similar to the ruling in Gadil v. Cordova. On the issue of whether the complainant was denied due process: The Court implicitly found that due process was denied. The complainant and her brother were not parties to the original case (S.P. No. 2003-0132-D), and they were not given notice of the writ of possession or the writ of demolition before their properties were demolished. The respondent sheriff's reliance on a motion to intervene supposedly filed by complainant's children was unmeritorious, as there was no indication that these children were related to the complainant or acting on her behalf, nor that the complainant herself participated in the proceedings. The respondent sheriff failed to bring the objections of the complainant and her brother to the attention of the issuing judge, thereby preventing them from asserting their rights and participating in the determination of whether their structures were indeed encroaching on Lot No. 3544.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff, in executing a writ of demolition, must ensure that the writ is enforceable against the occupants of the property and must exercise prudence and caution, bringing any objections or ambiguities to the attention of the issuing judge.