ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.M. No. OCA-I.P.I 97-395-MTJ. January 19, 2000]

MARIANO LICO vs. JUDGE ISAGANI A. GERONIMO, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 19 2000.

A.M. No. OCA-I.P.I 97-395-MTJ (Mariano Lico vs. Judge Isagani A. Geronimo, Municipal Trial Court, Branch 2, Antipolo, Rizal, et al.)

This is a complaint for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, conduct unbecoming an officer of the court, and oppression filed by Mariano Lico against Judge Isagani A. Geronimo of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 2, Antipolo, Rizal, and against Deputy Sheriff Rolando C. Leyva, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 74, Antipolo, Rizal. Complainant was one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 2318 for forcible entry before the sala of Judge Geronimo.

Judge Geronimo rendered a Decision in that case in favor of the plaintiffs. On April 1, 1997, he issued an alias writ of execution. In his return, dated April 11, 1997, respondent Leyva stated that the plaintiffs could not be placed in physical possession of the property in question without the issuance of an order of demolition because of improvements made on the land. Plaintiffs then filed a motion, dated April 24, 1994, for the issuance of an order of demolition, which Judge Geronimo granted on July 2, 1997. In his report, dated July 18, 1997, respondent Leyva stated that over the opposition of defendants, he implemented the order of demolition on July 15, 1997.

According to complainant, Judge Geronimo and Sheriff Leyva acted improperly in issuing the writ of demolition on July 2, 1997 and implementing it on July 15, 1997, because the alias writ of execution had by then lapsed. The writ was issued on April 1, 1997 and, under Rule 39, �11 of the Rules of Court of 1964, it lapsed after 60 days, or on May 31, 1997.

Based on the foregoing facts, however, the Office of the Court Administrator, to which this case was referred, recommends the dismissal of the complaint against Judge Geronimo and Sheriff Leyva.

Its recommendation is well taken. It should be noted that, on April 11, 1997, within the 60-day period specified in Rule 39, �11, Sheriff Leyva made a return on the alias writ of execution. It appears that plaintiffs did not ask for the issuance of a second alias writ of execution. Instead, they filed a motion for the issuance of an order of demolition on April 24, 1994, likewise during the lifetime of the alias writ of execution, in view of the improvements made on the land. Thus, Judge Geronimo and Sheriff Leyva did not act improperly in issuing and implementing the writ of demolition despite the expiration of the lifetime of the alias writ of execution, because they merely carried to its logical conclusion a process initiated within the 60-day period prescribed in Rule 39, �11.

WHEREFORE, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE