THIRD DIVISION
TEODORA A.
CAPACETE
AND RODOLFO
CAPACETE,
Complainants,
A.M.
No.
P-03-1700
February 23, 2004
-versus-
JOEL O. ARELLANO,
SHERIFF IV,REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT,BRANCH 25,
BIÑAN,
LAGUNA,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.
:
This Administrative
Complaint[1]
filed by Spouses Rodolfo and Teodora Capacete charges Joel O. Arellano,
sheriff IV, assigned in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25,
Biñan
Laguna, with grave misconduct and harassment.
The antecedent facts
that gave rise to the complaint are as follows:
Complainant Rodolfo
Capacete is one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 89, entitled
“Alejandro
Capacete and Rodolfo Capacete vs. Venancia Baroro, et. al.” for illegal
detainer filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Cabuyao, Laguna.chanrobles virtual law library
On June 4, 1989, the
MTC rendered its Decision holding that as between the opposing parties,
the defendants have the right of possession over Lot 88 with an area of
909 square meters situated at Barangay Marinig, Cabuyao, Laguna; and
ordering
the plaintiffs to vacate the premises and to pay the defendants jointly
and severally the sum of P57,266.00 as rentals,[2]
PP100,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees. On
appeal,[3]
the RTC affirmed the MTC Decision in toto, prompting the plaintiffs to
file with the Court of Appeals a petition for review. But it was
dismissed.
Upon the finality of the Court of Appeals Decision and upon defendants’
motion, the RTC issued a “Writ of Execution.”
In their affidavit-complaint,
spouses Capacete alleged that on March 15, 2001, respondent sheriff
issued
a Notice of Levy, not on Lot 88, but on a parcel of land covered by
Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 378033 in the name of complainant
Rodolfo
Capacete with an area of 168 square meters, also situated at Barrio
Marinig,
Cabuyao, Laguna. By levying on the wrong property and by repeatedly
enforcing
the writ, respondent sheriff is administratively liable for grave
misconduct
and harassment.cralaw:red
In his Comment,[4]
respondent sheriff denied the charges which he considers malicious. He
explained that in enforcing the final Decision, he merely complied with
the “Writ of Execution” issued by the RTC on January 4, 2001. He served
the “Notice to Vacate” upon the plaintiffs but they defied it.chanrobles virtual law library
On March 15, 2001, he
caused the registration of the “Notice of Levy” on TCT No. T-378033 to
satisfy the money judgment.cralaw:red
On August 31, 2001,
he filed with the RTC the “Sheriff’s Return.”
In his Report and Recommendation
dated March 21, 2003,[5]
Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. found respondent sheriff
guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duty, thus:
“Respondent
Sheriff erred in implementing the Writ of Execution issued by the
Branch
Clerk of Court of Branch 25, RTC, Biñan, Laguna. Respondent
levied
the property owned by spouses Rodolfo Capacete and Teodora Aguinaldo
which
was not the subject of the Writ of Execution. Paragraph (b) of the Writ
of Execution issued to respondent to implement reads:
(b) As
between
plaintiffs Alejandro and Rodolfo Capacete, on one hand, and Venancia
Baroro,
on the other hand, declaring the latter to be the legitimate owners of
Lot 88, Cad No. 455-D, with an area of 909 square meters, and located
at
Barangay Marinig, Cabuyao, Laguna (p. 17, Rollo).
In the Notice of Levy,
respondent Sheriff levied, to satisfy the Writ of Execution, the
property
herein below described.
TCT No. T-378033
“A parcel of land (Lot
24-B of subd. Plan Psd-043404-04-7582, being a portion of Lot 24, Blk.
3 (LRC), Psd-728859, LRC Rec. No.) situated in the Bo of Marinig, Mun.
of Cabuyao, Prov. of Laguna. Bounded on the x x x containing an area of
One Hundred Sixty Eight (168) square meters, more or less.chanrobles virtual law library
After respondent issued
a Notice of Levy addressed to the Register of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna
on March 15, 2001, Atty. Oscar A. Reyes, counsel for the complainant,
wrote
the Register of Deeds requesting that the annotation at the back of TCT
No. T-378033, by reason of the Notice of Levy be cancelled for the said
property was not the subject of the Writ of execution dated January 4,
2001 issued by the RTC of Biñan, Laguna (p. 009, Rollo).
Respondent
received a copy of the letter on April 20, 2001. Despite the
receipt
of the said letter, respondent did not mention or explain the relation
between the property that he levied and the property described in
paragraph
(b) of the Writ of Execution, despite their differences in land areas
and
in numbers of the lots.cralaw:red
The presumption of regularity
in the performance of official functions does not apply where it is
patent
that the sheriff erred in implementing the writ of execution.
Respondent
sheriff, therefore, is guilty of gross negligence.“
Court Administrator
Velasco recommended that respondent sheriff be suspended from the
service
for three (3) months without pay.cralaw:red
Subsequently, this Court
resolved to re-docket the complaint as a regular administrative matter.
Pursuant to the Resolution of this Court dated April 28, 2003, the
parties
manifested that they are submitting this case for decision on the basis
of the pleadings/records filed.chanrobles virtual law library
At the outset, it bears
stressing that “sheriffs play an important part in the administration
of
justice because they are tasked to execute the final judgments of
courts.
If not enforced, such decisions are empty victories on the part of the
prevailing parties.”[6]chanrobles virtual law library
Here, the “Writ of Execution”
specifically directed respondent sheriff to evict the plaintiffs from
the
property. The directive that they vacate the premises is consistent
with
Section 10 (c), Rule 39 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which provides:
“Sec. 10.
Execution
of judgments for specific act. -
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
(c) Delivery or
restitution
of real property.- The officer shall demand of the person against whom
the judgment for the delivery or restitution of real property is
rendered
and all persons claiming rights under him to peaceably vacate the
property
within the three (3) working days, and restore possession thereof to
the
judgment obligee; otherwise, the officer shall oust all such persons
therefrom
with the assistance, if necessary, of appropriate peace officers, and
employing
such means as may be reasonably necessary to retake possession, and
place
the judgment obligee in possession of such property. Any costs,
damages,
rents or profits awarded by the judgment shall be satisfied in the same
manner as a judgment for money.”
The “Writ of Execution”
likewise directed respondent sheriff to demand from the plaintiffs
payment
of rentals, moral damages and attorney’s fees, but they also refused to
pay. Pursuant to the above provisions, such amounts shall be satisfied
in the same manner as a judgment for money. This is the reason why
respondent
sheriff levied upon the lot covered by TCT No. T-378033.chanrobles virtual law library
The duty of a sheriff
in enforcing writs of execution is ministerial and not discretionary.[7]
Well settled is the rule that when a writ is placed in the hands of the
sheriff, it is his ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity
and promptness to execute in accordance with its mandate.[8]
We hold that respondent sheriff acted within the bounds of his
ministerial
duty.cralaw:red
Incidentally, the RTC
erred in issuing the “Writ of Execution” after the finality of the
Decision.
It should have remanded the case to the MTC for execution of the
judgment.
In City of Manila vs. Court of Appeals,[9]
we held:
“The rule
is
that if the judgment of the metropolitan trial court is appealed to the
regional trial court and the decision of the latter is itself elevated
to the Court of Appeals, whose decision thereafter became final, the
case
should be remanded through the regional trial court to the metropolitan
trial court for execution [Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol.1, p.
276]. The only exception is the execution pending appeal, which can be
issued by the regional trial court under Sec. 8 of Rule 70 or the Court
of Appeals or the Supreme Court under Sec. 10 of the same Rule.”
On another tack, it is
noteworthy that the award of moral damages is likewise erroneous. The
only
damages that can be recovered in an ejectment suit are the fair rental
value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the
property.[10]
However, the RTC’s erroneous
directives in the “Writ of Execution” do not necessarily mean that its
execution by respondent sheriff is similarly erroneous. Respondent was
just zealous in the performance of his duty pursuant to the court’s
mandate.chanrobles virtual law library
In administrative proceedings,
the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the
allegations
in his complaint.[11]
In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the
presumption
that respondent sheriff has regularly performed his official duties,[12]
as in this case.chanrobles virtual law library
As we held in Sarmiento
vs. Salamat:[13]
“x
x x this Court will
never
tolerate or condone any conduct, act or omission that would violate the
norm of public accountability or diminish the people’s faith in the
judiciary.
However, when an administrative charge against a court personnel holds
no basis whatsoever in fact or in law, this Court will not hesitate to
protect the innocent court employee against any groundless accusation
that
trifles with judicial processes.
“As a final note,
this
Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline
upon
employees of the judiciary, but neither will it hesitate to shield them
from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the
orderly administration of justice.”
WHEREFORE, the instant
administrative complaint against Joel O. Arellano, Sheriff IV, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 25, Biñan, Laguna, is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Vitug, J., (Chairman), Corona,
and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 3-5.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
From March 14, 1977 up to the time they vacate the premises.
[3]
Docketed as Civil Case No. B-3433.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Id. at 14-15.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Rollo at 63 to 66.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
San Juan, Jr. vs. Sangalang, Adm. Matter No. P-00-1437, February 6,
2001,
351 SCRA 210.
[7]
Eduarte vs. Ramos, A.M. No. P-94-1069, November 9, 1994, 238 SCRA 36,
40.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Onquit vs. Binamira-Parcia, A.M. MTJ-96-1085, October 8, 1998, 297 SCRA
354, 364, citing Jumio vs. Egay-Eviota, 231 SCRA 551.
[9]
G.R. No. 100626, November 29, 1991, 204 SCRA 362, 269.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83959, April 8, 1991, 195 SRA
715, citing Felisida vs. Judge Villanueva, 139 SCRA 431; Reyes vs.
Court
of Appeals, 38 SCRA 138; Ramirez vs. Chit, 21 SCRA 1364.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Sarmiento vs. Salamat, supra, citing Lorena v. Encomienda, 302 SCRA
632,
641 (1999); Cortes vs. Agcaoili, 294 SCRA 423 (1998).
[12]
Id., citing Onquit vs. Binamira-Parcia, 297 SCRA 354 (1998).chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Id. |