ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. OCA I.P.I.-99-650-P.February 12, 2001]

RODRIGUEZ vs. SHERIFF LINTAO et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 12 2001.

A.M. No. OCA-I.P.I.-99-650-P(Antonieta Rodriguez vs. Sheriff IV Fraconello S. Lintao and Sheriff V Benjamin C. Hao.)

Complainant Antonieta Rodriguez is the caretaker of Prenza Food Corp., owned by Chua Kim Chee, subject of Civil Case No. 292-M-98 for ejectment, entitled "Wilson Tan Lui, et al. vs. Chua Kim Chee." It appears that judgment was rendered by Regional Trial Court, Branch 83, Malolos, Bulacan, ordering Chua Kim Chee to vacate the premises. Pending appeal, a writ of execution was issued, but it could not be enforced because of Chua Kim Chee's refusal to leave the premises. Accordingly, on March 23, 1999, the trial court directed the Deputy Sheriff to enforce and implement the writ with the assistance of the Station Commander of PNP Marilao, Bulacan.

On May 28, 1999, complainant filed a letter-complaint against respondent Sheriffs Franconello S. Lintao of RTC, Branch 83, Malolos, Bulacan and Benjamin C. Hao of the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan charging them with grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct. Complainant alleged that, on March 31, 1999, respondent sheriffs broke into the premises of the Prenza Food Corp. and forcibly ejected her, taking away some of her personal belongings and causing destruction to the premises.

In their joint comment, respondent sheriffs denied the allegations against them and claimed that complainant allowed them to enter the premises in order to enforce the writ of execution.

On September 13, 2000, the Court referred the matter to Executive Judge Danilo Manalastas of RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, for investigation, report, and recommendation. Executive Judge Manalastas found the administrative complaint against respondent sheriffs to be without any basis. Complainant testified that respondent sheriffs, together with some policemen, entered the premises in question through a side gate. It appears, however, that complainant refused to give them the key, claiming that her employer Chua Kim Chee had it. For this reason, respondents broke the padlock to gain access to the main gate. Executive Judge Manalastas says that this belies the claim of complainant that respondents forced their way into the premises. Executive Judge Manalastas also found that the allegations of complainant that her eviction from the subject premises was made without prior notice and that it was done on a holiday are false and misleading. The questioned writ of execution was issued on September 30, 1998 and implemented on March 31, 1999, which was not a holiday.

Complainant admitted that respondent Lintao talked to Nekee (son of Chua Kim Chee) and gave him (Nekee) the notice to vacate within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. However, Nekee told complainant to stay in the premises. After respondent sheriffs had left, complainant and her family returned to the premises until they were finally evicted on May 4, 1999. Executive Judge Manalastas likewise found no basis for complainant's allegation that respondent sheriffs took complainant's personal belongings. For these reasons, Executive Judge Manalastas recommends that the administrative complaint against respondent sheriffs be dismissed.

The recommendation is well taken. The Court finds no reason to set aside the factual findings of the investigating judge, the latter being in a better position to decide factual issues, as he has heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the investigation. Complainant's refusal to give the key to respondent sheriffs justified the latter's act of destroying the padlock. Respondent sheriffs had a duty to restore possession of the premises to the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 39, �10(c) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. To destroy the padlock was the only way they could get inside the premises. In the performance of that duty, they enjoy the presumption that they were acting in a regular manner.

Indeed, officers charged with the enforcement and/or implementation of judgments are required to act with dispatch so as not to unduly delay the administration of justice. When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any order to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable promptness to execute it according to its mandate (San Jose v. Centeno, 245 SCRA 297 (1995)). In this case, the Court finds that respondent sheriffs acted in accordance with law in enforcing the writ of execution against complainant and her principal.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the complaint against Sheriff IV Franconello S. Lintao and Sheriff V Benjamin C. Hao 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