Maylas v. Esmeria
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Angelita D. Maylas and her husband Ignacio Maylas were plaintiffs in a civil case for quieting of title and recovery of possession and ownership. The RTC rendered a decision ordering the defendants (spouses Dolendo) to pay the plaintiffs Php23,000.00 for a demolished house, declaring the defendants owners of the lot where their house was being constructed, and ordering defendants to pay Php10,000.00 as attorney's fees. Procedural History: On August 2, 2007, a writ of possession was issued, which the complainant alleged was defective. The respondent sheriff filed a motion for the assistance of a geodetic engineer without furnishing a copy to the parties, which the complainant considered gross ignorance of the law. The motion was granted the next day. On August 4, 2007, the respondent filed an officer's return, allegedly providing inaccurate information that the Maylas couple demolished half of the Dolendo's house and constructed an apartment on the disputed area. The complainant asserted this was not the property under litigation and that the respondent distorted facts to favor the Dolendos. The Petition: The complainant filed an administrative complaint against the respondent sheriff for grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and incompetence.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff committed grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and incompetence in the implementation of the writ of possession, specifically concerning alleged irregularities in the implementation and inaccuracies in the officer's return. Whether the alleged defectiveness of the writ of possession and the lack of hearing for the motion for the assistance of a geodetic engineer warrant administrative sanctions against the sheriff.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of merit, adopting the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged irregularities in the implementation of the writ of possession and inaccuracies in the officer's return: The Court held that the crux of the complainant's accusation centered on the alleged distortion of facts by the respondent sheriff in his Officer's Return. The respondent sheriff rebutted this by explaining that the spouses Maylas also caused the demolition of half of the spouses Dolendo's house after the decision was rendered and before the implementation of the writ. The OCA opined that since the conflict arose from an alleged irregularity in the implementation of a writ issued by a trial court, it is proper for the trial court that issued the writ to settle the matter. The tribunal which rendered the decision has supervisory control over its execution and can correct errors of its ministerial officers. Therefore, any irregularities should have been litigated in the court which issued the writ. On the alleged defective writ of possession and the lack of hearing for the motion for the assistance of a geodetic engineer: The Court agreed with the respondent sheriff that the alleged defect in the writ of possession is judicial in nature, as it was issued pursuant to an order from the judge. The respondent sheriff's duty to implement the writ was purely ministerial. The complainant should have addressed any issues regarding the writ's issuance to the judge, not the sheriff. The Court noted that the motion for the assistance of a geodetic engineer was eventually granted by the trial court. If the complainant believed they were deprived of due process, they should have impleaded the presiding judge or the branch clerk of court, who are primarily responsible for setting and granting/denying motions. Grumbling against the respondent sheriff for an alleged erroneous issuance of the motion was deemed barking up the wrong tree.
Main Doctrine
Alleged irregularities in the implementation of a writ of possession by a sheriff, including inaccuracies in the officer's return and defects in the writ itself, should be brought before the court that issued the writ for resolution, as the tribunal issuing the writ has supervisory control over its execution and the sheriff's duty is ministerial.