ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
June-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-00-1446 June 6, 2001 - PATERNO R. PLANTILLA v. RODRIGO G. BALIWAG

  • A.M. No. P-91-642 June 6, 2001 - SOLEDAD LAURO v. EFREN LAURO

  • G.R. No. 92328 June 6, 2001 - DAP MINING ASSO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100579 June 6, 2001 - LEANDRO P. GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113918 June 6, 2001 - MARCELINA G. TRINIDAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121272 June 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYDERICK LAGO

  • G.R. No. 122353 June 6, 2001 - EVANGELINE DANAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129534 & 141169 June 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR MACANDOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138949 June 6, 2001 - UNION BANK OF THE PHIL. v. SEC

  • G.R. No. 138971 June 6, 2001 - PEZA v. RUMOLDO R FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 139034 June 6, 2001 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139323 June 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLO ELLASOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140128 June 6, 2001 - ARNOLD P. MOLLANEDA v. LEONIDA C. UMACOB

  • G.R. No. 140277 June 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. GUILLERMO BALDAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141529 June 6, 2001 - FRANCISCO YAP, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142888 June 6, 2001 - EVELIO P. BARATA v. BENJAMIN ABALOS JR.

  • G.R. No. 143561 June 6, 2001 - JONATHAN D. CARIAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110335 June 18, 2001 - IGNACIO GONZALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1615 June 19, 2001 - WINNIE BAJET v. PEDRO M. AREOLA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1633 June 19, 2001 - ANTONIO and ELSA FORTUNA v. MA. NIMFA PENACO-SITACA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99433 June 19, 2001 - PROJECT BUILDERS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114944 June 19, 2001 - MANUEL C. ROXAS, ET AL. v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120701 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JONATHAN CRISANTO

  • G.R. No. 123916 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYNTON ASUNCION

  • G.R. No. 130605 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX UGANAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132160 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132223 June 19, 2001 - BONIFACIA P. VANCIL v. HELEN G. BELMES

  • G.R. No. 134895 June 19, 2001 - STA. LUCIA REALTY and DEV’T., ET AL. v. LETICIA CABRIGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137164 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERT NUBLA

  • G.R. No. 137752 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT AYUNGON

  • G.R. Nos. 138298 & 138982 June 19, 2001 - RAOUL B. DEL MAR v. PAGCOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139313 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORANTE LEAL

  • G.R. No. 140690 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAZAR U. CHAVEZ

  • G.R. No. 141441 June 19, 2001 - JOSE SUAN v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-10-230-MTCC June 20, 2001 - RE: JULIAN C. OCAMPO III AND RENATO C. SAN JUAN

  • A.M. No. 00-11-521-RTC June 20, 2001 - RE: AWOL OF MS. LILIAN B. BANTOG

  • A.M. No. P-99-1346 June 20, 2001 - RESTITUTO L. CASTRO v. CARLOS BAGUE

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1606 June 20, 2001 - PATRIA MAQUIRAN v. LILIA G. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 84831 June 20, 2001 - PACENCIO ABEJARON v. FELIX NABASA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109666 June 20, 2001 - ROGERIO R. OLAGUER, ET AL. v. EUFEMIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113564 June 20, 2001 - INOCENCIA YU DINO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115851 June 20, 2001 - LA JOLLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127129 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128617 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR BACUS

  • G.R. Nos. 129292-93 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARLENGEN DEGALA

  • G.R. No. 130524 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY MADIA

  • G.R. No. 131036 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONATO DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. Nos. 135976-80 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIO GALENO

  • G.R. No. 138629 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON CAMACHO

  • G.R. No. 139430 June 20, 2001 - EDI STAFF BUILDERS INTERNATIONAL v. FERMINA D. MAGSINO

  • G.R. Nos. 139445-46 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 142304 June 20, 2001 - CITY OF MANILA v. OSCAR SERRANO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1342 June 21, 2001 - BISHOP CRISOSTOMO A. YALUNG, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE M. PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 108558 June 21, 2001 - ANDREA TABUSO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109197 June 21, 2001 - JAYME C. UY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111580 & 114802 June 21, 2001 - SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MNGT. LTD. ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116200-02 June 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131131 June 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABELARDO SALONGA

  • G.R. No. 134138 June 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO BRIONES AYTALIN

  • G.R. Nos. 135552-53 June 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABEL ABACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139542 June 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. INOCENCIO GONZALEZ

  • G.R. No. 140206 June 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MATYAONG

  • G.R. No. 142023 June 21, 2001 - SANNY B. GINETE v. SUNRISE MANNING AGENCY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103068 June 22, 2001 - MEAT PACKING CORP. OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1110 June 25, 2001 - MANUEL N. MAMBA, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR L. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 116710 June 25, 2001 - DANILO D. MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117857 June 25, 2001 - LUIS S. WONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128126 June 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL M. CATAPANG

  • G.R. No. 132051 June 25, 2001 - TALA REALTY SERVICES CORP. v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • G.R. No. 134068 June 25, 2001 - UNION BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136221 June 25, 2001 - EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. MAYFAIR THEATER

  • G.R. No. 136382 June 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL ALBORIDA

  • G.R. Nos. 138439-41 June 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO PANGANIBAN

  • G.R. No. 141141 June 25, 2001 - PAGCOR v. CARLOS P. RILLORAZA

  • G.R. No. 141801 June 25, 2001 - SOLOMON ALVAREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143428 June 25, 2001 - SANDOVAL SHIPYARDS, ET AL. v. PRISCO PEPITO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-11-423-RTC June 26, 2001 - RE: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1461 June 26, 2001 - RICARDO DELA CRUZ v. HERMINIA M. PASCUA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1486 June 26, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ISMAEL SANCHEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 110547-50 & 114526-667 June 26, 2001 - JOSE SAYSON v. SANDIGANBAYAN ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120859 June 26, 2001 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. FRANCISCO Y. WONG

  • G.R. No. 123542 June 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO BULOS

  • G.R. Nos. 132848-49 June 26, 2001 - PHILROCK v. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133990 June 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HECTOR MARIANO

  • G.R. No. 134764 June 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. BENJAMIN FABIA

  • G.R. Nos. 139626-27 June 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 143204 June 26, 2001 - HYATT TAXI SERVICES INC. v. RUSTOM M. CATINOY

  • G.R. Nos. 147589 & 147613 June 26, 2001 - ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130661 June 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO I. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135882 June 27, 2001 - LOURDES T. MARQUEZ v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140001 June 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO BUENAFLOR

  • A.C. No. 3910 June 28, 2001 - JOSE S. DUCAT v. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4073 June 28, 2001 - ARACELI SIPIN-NABOR v. BENJAMIN BATERINA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1480 June 28, 2001.

    AMADO S. CAGUIOA v. CRISANTO FLORA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1343 June 28, 2001 - ORLANDO T. MENDOZA v. ROSBERT M. TUQUERO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1576 June 28, 2001 - SIMPLICIO ALIB v. EMMA C. LABAYEN

  • G.R. No. 105364 June 28, 2001 - PHIL. VETERANS BANK EMPLOYEES UNION-N.U.B.E., ET AL. v. BENJAMIN VEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110813 June 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO PARDUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110914 June 28, 2001 - ALFREDO CANUTO; JR., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112453-56 June 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO LATUPAN

  • G.R. Nos. 112563 & 110647 June 28, 2001 - HEIRS OF KISHINCHAND HIRANAND DIALDAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120630 June 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO PALERMO

  • G.R. No. 131954 June 28, 2001 - ASELA B. MONTECILLO, ET AL v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. Nos. 132026-27 June 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO ABENDAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132362 June 28, 2001 - PIO BARRETTO REALTY DEV’T. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132837 June 28, 2001 - JO CINEMA CORP., ET AL. v. LOLITA C. ABELLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133605 June 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN BARRIAS

  • G.R. No. 135846 June 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. NOEL ORTEGA

  • G.R. No. 138270 June 28, 2001 - SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142314 June 28, 2001 - MC ENGINEERING, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143723 June 28, 2001 - LITONJUA GROUP OF CO.’s., ET AL. v. TERESITA VIGAN

  • G.R. No. 144113 June 28, 2001 - EDWEL MAANDAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL

  • G.R. No. 144942 June 28, 2001 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LA SUERTE CIGAR.

  • G.R. No. 146062 June 28, 2001 - SANTIAGO ESLABAN v. CLARITA VDA. DE ONORIO

  • A.M. No. 00 4-166-RTC June 29, 2001 - Re: Report on the Judicial Audit

  • A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC June 29, 2001 - HERNANDO PEREZ, ET AL. v. JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1380 June 29, 2001 - GLORIA O. DINO v. FRANCISCO DUMUKMAT

  • G.R. No. 110480 June 29, 2001 - BANGKO SILANGAN DEVELOPMENT BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111860 June 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS CLEDORO

  • G.R. No. 116092 June 29, 2001 - SUSANA VDA. DE COCHINGYAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118251 June 29, 2001 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121597 June 29, 2001 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125944 June 29, 2001 - DANILO SOLANGON, ET AL. v. JOSE AVELINO SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. 126396 June 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. FELIXBERTO LAO-AS

  • G.R. No. 128705 June 29, 2001 - CONRADO AGUILAR v. COMMERCIAL SAVINGS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129782 June 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALWINDER SINGH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131968 June 29, 2001 - ERNESTO PENGSON, ET AL v. MIGUEL OCAMPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132059 June 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WENEFREDO DIMSON ASOY

  • G.R. No. 138598 June 29, 2001 - ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144542 June 29, 2001 - FRANCISCO DELA PEÑA, ET AL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. P-99-1343   June 28, 2001 - ORLANDO T. MENDOZA v. ROSBERT M. TUQUERO, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [A.M. No. P-99-1343. June 28, 2001.]

    ORLANDO T. MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF IV ROSBERT M. TUQUERO, and SHERIFF IV ANTONIO V. LEANO, JR., Respondents.

    R E S O L U T I O N


    PER CURIAM:


    The case is an administrative complaint against Sheriff IV Rosbert M. Tuquero and Sheriff IV Antonio V. Leaño, Jr., (hereafter, "respondent-sheriffs") both of the Office of the Provincial Sheriff, Province of Tarlac, for "manifest negligence and gross misfeasance" in delaying the implementation of writs of demolition in an ejectment case. 1chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Complainant Orlando T. Mendoza (hereafter, "Orlando") is the attorney-in-fact of Lolita Casila P. Mendoza, plaintiff in a civil case for ejectment 2 before the Municipal Trial Court, Tarlac, Tarlac. 3

    Plaintiff Lolita P. Casila Mendoza averred that defendants 4 occupied her lot located at San Rafael, Tarlac, Tarlac, without any color of title thereto. Plaintiff prayed that defendants remove the houses they constructed on the land, pay her compensatory damages and restore the possession of the land to her. 5

    On April 12, 1994, the Municipal Trial Court, Tarlac, Tarlac, rendered a decision 6 in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, thus: 7

    "WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff ordering:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. the defendants and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the premises by removing their houses constructed thereon;

    "2. to pay plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses;

    "3. to pay the amount of P500.00 a month as compensatory damages counted from the time they occupied the premises until the possession thereof is restored to the plaintiff;

    "4. and to pay the costs.

    "SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

    No appeal was taken by the parties and the decision became final and executory on April 29, 1994. 8

    On May 2, 1994, Orlando filed with the municipal trial court, a "motion for writ of execution" of the aforequoted decision. We quote the motion: 9

    "Plaintiff states:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "1. That defendants were served with a copy of the decision in the above-entitled case on April 14, 1994 and until now, no appeal has been taken therefrom.

    "2. That the time to appeal has expired, and said decision is already final, unappealable and executory.

    "WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that a writ of execution be issued on (sic) this case."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On May 16, 1994, the trial court issued a writ of execution. 10

    On June 10, 1994, complainant filed with the trial court a motion for demolition for failure of the defendants to comply with the decision. 11

    On June 13, 1994, the trial court granted the motion and issued a writ of demolition commanding the Sheriff of Tarlac, Tarlac: 12

    ". . . to demolish the improvements erected by the defendants on the premises in question.

    "This writ shall be returned you to this Court within ten (10) days from the date of receipt hereof, together with you proceedings indorsed thereon."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Complainant Orlando alleged that the writ of demolition was not implemented because the defendants pleaded with plaintiff that the case be settled amicably. 13 However, the amicable settlement did not materialize. 14

    On August 31, 1995, the trial court granted complainant Orlando’s motion 15 for the issuance of an alias writ of demolition. 16

    The Provincial Sheriff of Tarlac did not implement the alias writ of demolition.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    On February 5, 1997, upon motion of complainant, 17 the trial court issued a second alias writ of demolition. 18

    Again, the Provincial Sheriff of Tarlac did not implement the second alias writ of demolition. In a "sheriff’s return of service" dated April 14, 1997, respondent-sheriffs stated that the second alias writ of demolition was not effected because defendants filed with the trial court a motion for a temporary restraining order. 19

    On April 10, 1997, the trial court denied defendant’s motion for a temporary restraining order. 20

    On April 18, 1997, on motion of complainant, 21 the trial court issued a third alias writ of demolition. 22 This writ was likewise not implemented as evidenced by the Sheriff’s Return dated May 12, 1997. 23

    On July 4, 1997, the trial court granted complainant’s fourth motion 24 and issued a fourth alias writ of demolition.25cralaw:red

    On November 21, 1997, Orlando wrote the Court Administrator, Supreme Court, 26 a letter-complaint against respondent-sheriffs. 27 Orlando alleged that respondent-sheriffs were deliberately deferring the implementation of the writ of demolition to favor the defendants. 28

    In the meantime, on February 27, 1998, respondent sheriffs implemented the fourth alias writ of demolition. 29

    Hence, respondent-sheriffs prayed that complainant’s letter-complaint be set aside and that they be relieved of any liability arising from non-implementation of the fourth alias writ of demolition. 30

    On November 22, 1999, the Court resolved to refer the case to Executive Judge Arsenio P. Adriano of the Regional Trial Court, Tarlac City, for investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from notice. 31

    On January 5, 2000, Executive Judge Adriano recommended that the administrative case against respondent-sheriffs be dismissed given that the fourth alias writ of demolition was eventually executed. 32

    On January 27, 2000, Executive Judge Adriano submitted another report and recommendation. He found that there was delay in the implementation of the writ of demolition. Every time a demolition was scheduled, the plaintiff and her attorney-in-fact had to secure the services of carpenters and policemen to effect the demolition, causing them to incur unnecessary expenses. He found that respondent-sheriffs were guilty of neglect in the performance of their duties and recommended that they be ordered to pay a fine of at least one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) each. 33

    On February 23, 2000, the Court resolved to refer the case to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation within thirty (30) days from notice. 34

    On May 8, 2000, the Office of the Court Administrators 35 submitted the following recommendation: 36

    "IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the undersigned respectfully recommends that a FINE in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) each be imposed against respondents with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely." chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    We agree with the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator, except as to the recommended penalty. True, after four (4) years, respondent-sheriffs finally implemented the fourth alias writ of demolition. However, this will not exculpate them from liability. The need for a fourth alias writ of execution eloquently evinces the unnecessary delay in its implementation. In Smith Bell and Co. v. Saur, 37 we held that the duty of sheriffs to promptly execute a writ is mandatory and ministerial. Sheriffs have no discretion on whether or not to implement a writ. There is no need for the litigants to "follow-up" its implementation.

    Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice. They are tasked to execute final judgments of the courts. If not enforced, such decisions become empty victories of the prevailing parties. As agents of the law, sheriffs are called upon to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence because in serving the court’s writs and processes and implementing its order, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice. 38 In Moya v. Bassig, 39 we dismissed respondent sheriff for his failure to execute the trial court’s decision. There, we held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It is indisputable that the most difficult phase of any proceeding is the execution of judgment. Hence the officers charged with the delicate task of the enforcement and/or implementation of the same must, in the absence of a restraining order, act with considerable dispatch so as not to unduly delay the administration of justice; otherwise, the decisions, orders or other processes of the courts of justice and the like would be futile. Stated differently, the judgment if not executed would be just an empty victory on the part of the prevailing party."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the case at bar, the classic line "justice delayed is justice denied" finds relevance. The decision of the municipal trial court has become final. It was imperative to execute it. Respondent-sheriffs’ failure to execute it for four (4) years constitutes gross neglect of duty.cralaw : red

    The conduct and behavior of every one connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else must be above suspicion. 40

    In Gonzales La’o v. Hatab, 41 we dismissed respondent sheriff for his unreasonable delay in executing the judgment of the trial court in an ejectment case.

    In this case, respondent-sheriff’s folly is no less different, thus warranting the same punishment meted out to the deputy sheriff involved in the afore-cited "Bassig" case and in the "Hatab" case.

    WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondents Sheriff IV Rosbert M. Tuquero and Sheriff IV Antonio V. Leaño, Jr. both of the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Tarlac, Tarlac, guilty of gross neglect of duty and serious misconduct in office and accordingly, orders their DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement benefits, if any, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities including government-owned and controlled corporations.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr. and Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Civil Case No. 5747, Municipal Trial Court, Tarlac, Tarlac.

    2. Civil Case No. 5747.

    3. Letter Complaint, Rollo, pp. 1-3, at p. 1.

    4. Maria Vda. Tolentino, Sps. Efren Reyes and Magdalena Tolentino, Sps. Ricardo Pineda and Gloria Tolentino, Sps. Eulogio Tolentino and Lucila Tolentino.

    5. Letter-complaint, Annex "A", Decision of the Municipal Trial Court, Rollo, pp. 3-5, at p. 4.

    6. Judge Panfilo V. Valdez, presiding.

    7. Letter-Complaint, Annex "A", Decision of the Municipal Trial Court, Rollo, pp. 3-5, at p. 5.

    8. Letter-Complaint, Annex "A", Decision of the Municipal Trial Court, Rollo, p. 6.

    9. Letter-Complaint, Annex "A", Decision of the Municipal Trial Court, Rollo, p. 6.

    10. As stated in the Writ of Demolition issued on June 13, 1994, p. 7, Letter-Complaint, Annex "B", Rollo, p. 7.

    11. As stated in the Writ of Demolition issued on June 13, 1994, p. 7, Letter-Complaint, Annex "B", Rollo, p. 7.

    12. Letter Complaint, Annex "B", Writ of Demolition, Rollo, p. 7.

    13. Letter-Complaint, Rollo, pp. 1-3 at p. 1. See also Sheriff’s return, 1st Indorsement dated November 10, 1994, Letter-Complaint, Annex "C", Rollo, p. 8.

    14. Letter-Complaint, Rollo, pp. 1-3, at p. 1.

    15. Dated August 23, 1995.

    16. As stated in the Resolution of the Trial Court, Rollo, p. 10.

    17. Dated January 14, 1997, Letter-Complaint, Annex "E", Rollo, p. 13.

    18. Letter-Complaint, Annex "F", Rollo, p. 14.

    19. To restrain the municipal trial court from enforcing the second alias writ of demolition.

    20. Letter-Complaint, Rollo, p. 19.

    21. Dated April 16, 1997, Rollo, p. 20.

    22. Letter-Complaint, Annex "H", Rollo, pp. 21-22.

    23. Letter-Complaint, Annex "I", Rollo, p. 24.

    24. Dated June 19, 1997, Letter-Complaint, Annex "K", Rollo, p. 27.

    25. Letter-Complaint, Annex "K", Rollo, p. 24.

    26. Addressed to Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo.

    27. Letter-Complaint, Rollo, pp. 1-3.

    28. Ibid., p. 3.

    29. Rollo, pp. 34-35.

    30. Rollo, p. 33.

    31. Rollo, p. 51.

    32. Report and Recommendation, Rollo, pp. 59-60, at p. 60.

    33. Recommendation of Executive Judge Arsenio P. Adriano, Rollo, pp. 53-54.

    34. Rollo, p. 57.

    35. Through Officer in Charge, Office of the Court Administrator Bernardo T. Ponferrada and OIC-Legal Office, Office of the Court Administrator Danilo L. Mendoza.

    36. Memorandum for Hon. Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Rollo, pp. 78-81, at p. 81.

    37. 96 SCRA 667, 671 (1980) and Duenas v. Mandi, 151 SCRA 530, 543 (1987).

    38. Teresa T. Gonzales La’o & Co., Inc. v. Sheriff Jadi T. Hatab, A.M. No. P-99-1337, April 5, 2000.

    39. 138 SCRA 49, 52-53 (1985).

    40. Neeland v. Villanueva, 317 SCRA 652, 658 (1999).

    41. A.M. No. P-99-1337, April 5, 2000.

    A.M. No. P-99-1343   June 28, 2001 - ORLANDO T. MENDOZA v. ROSBERT M. TUQUERO, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED