ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. P-01-1458.February 28, 2001]

PADILLA vs. CABRERA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 28 2001.

A.M. No. P-01-1458(Pedro D. Padilla vs. Elmer D. Cabrera, Sheriff, Branch 81, MeTC, Valenzuela City.)

This is a complaint for grave abuse of discretion, oppression, misbehavior, and conduct unbecoming a public official filed against respondent Elmer Cabrera, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 81, Valenzuela City arising from his enforcement of a writ of execution in an ejectment case. It is alleged by complainant Pedro Padilla that he leased, on April 15, 1997, a portion of a house located in 37 Brigada St., Valenzuela, Metro Manila, from its owners Enriqueta Palazo, Ceferina Agulto, and Aurora-Candido; that the premises had previously been occupied by Pedro Bagadiong against whom judgment had been rendered by Branch 81 in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 6088); and that Bagadiong voluntarily vacated the premises occupied by him, thus, allowing complainant to lease the same premises, presumably from its owners. Complainant alleges that on March 15, 1999, a writ of execution was issued in the ejectment case and he was required by respondent sheriff to vacate the property within five days, and that, despite his protestations that he was not a party to the ejectment suit nor an assignee of any of the defendants in the ejectment case, respondent evicted him.

For his part, respondent Elmer D. Cabrera claims that he merely enforced the decision of the trial court pursuant to the writ of execution issued on March 15, 1999 and that in doing so he merely performed his ministerial function. He expresses doubt as to the validity of the lease contract relied upon by complainant as basis for his possession of the premises, as complainant was allegedly unable to produce receipts to show payments of rents. Respondent claims that he was in fact accompanied by Atty. Palazo, the daughter of one of the owners, Enriqueta Palazo, when he implemented the writ of execution on April 12, 1999.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommends the dismissal of the complaint stating that complainant has only himself to blame for failing to take steps to protect his interest notwithstanding prior notice of his impending eviction.

The recommendation is well taken. It is indeed true that in Cunanan vs. Cruz, 167 SCRA 674 (1988), a sheriff who executed a judgment in an unlawful detainer suit against one who was not a party to the case was fined for negligence. However, in that case, the sheriff also falsified his return to make it appear that the writ was issued by the trial court pursuant to a case where the person against whom it was served was a party when in fact the writ was issued in another case. Here, respondent Cabrera acted in good faith. The writ of execution was issued by the trial court on March 15, 1999. On March 23, 1999, respondent notified complainant of such fact and gave him five days to leave. To give complainant more time, respondent did not implement the writ until April 12, 1999. Respondent had no reason to believe complainant's claim that he was the new lessee because respondent was in fact accompanied by the daughter of one of the owners of the property, who was also one of the plaintiffs in the ejectment case. All that complainant could show for his right to be in the premises was a photocopy of a handwritten note purporting to be from E.D. Palazo, stating that the property in question had been leased to complainant. On the other hand, as already stated, respondent was accompanied in executing the judgment in the ejectment case by a daughter of Enriqueta D. Palazo.

Indeed, despite prior notice requiring him to vacate the premises, complainant did not complain to the owners of the property, who under Art. 1654(3) of the Civil Code, have the duty of maintaining him, as lessee, in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease, if it was really true that complainant has a lease contract. If complainant was the new lessee, it is hard to understand why the owners would seek enforcement of the writ of execution on the ejectment case against him. As the Office of the Court Administrator states, complainant failed to substantiate his charges against respondent sheriff.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Elmer D. Cabrera, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 81, Valenzuela City, is 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