ChanRobles Virtual law Library

<[A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1421-MTJ. <]

vs. ESTOESTA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 26 2004.

A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1421-MTJ (Lolita S. Vda. de Yumang vs. Judge Ma. Victoria A. Estoesta, Clerk of Court Lorenzo R. Datiles, Jr. and Sheriff Jesus R. Ramos.)

RESOLUTION

Considering the Report dated February 6, 2004 submitted by Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., to wit:

1.������ VERIFIED LETTER COMPLAINT signed by Lolita S. Vda. De Estoesta, * indicting the three above-named respondents for their actions in connection with Civil Case No. 27241, MeTC, Quezon City, entitled "Kapit Bisig Ng Junji Rolling Hills Homeowners Association, represented by its President, Rolando de Guzman, plaintiff, vs. Spouses Lolita and Orlando Yumang".

In her "Sinumpaang Salaysay" attached to the letter complaint, complainant alleges that she is one of the defendants in the aforementioned civil case. Although complainant admits that a judgment in favor of the plaintiff had been promulgated, she bewails the fact that the same was executed without the formalities required under Section 28 of R.A. No. 7279 and Executive Order No. 152.

Complainant further avers that on 22 May 2003, at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning, she and her family were evicted from the property they were occupying by virtue of a writ of execution issued by respondent clerk of court pursuant to an Order of respondent judge. Respondent sheriff was the one who implemented the writ. The writ of execution was issued by respondent Datiles, Jr. on 12 May 2003. On 14 May 2003, complainant's counsel filed a "Motion to Quash" the writ of execution on the basis of R.A. 7279 (Section 28), Executive Order No. 152 and the TRO issued by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 137794 (Erlinda Reyes, et al. vs. Hon. Judge Belen B. Ortiz, et al.) in connection with Civil Case No. C-18904-05 pending before Judge Edmundo Acuna of the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court.

It is further averred that the plaintiff in the aforementioned Civil Case filed an "Ex Parte Motion to Issue Writ of Demolition" on 15 May 2003. On 15 May 2003, respondent judge issued an Order directing the plaintiff to submit comment on the motion to quash and on 22 may 2003, respondent sheriff submitted a "Receipt of Possession" signed by a representative of the plaintiff.

Complainant claims that her counsel received the Order denying their motion to quash, dated 20 May 2003 only on 2 June 2003; that no notice was issued by the respondent sheriff before he evicted the complainant; that regardless of the fact that it was raining on that day, respondent sheriff continued with the eviction resulting in her family being exposed to the elements.

2.������ JOINT COMMENT OF RESPONDENTS. In obedience to the requirement of the Court Administrator, the three respondents filed a joint comment wherein they allege that on 12 October 2002, respondent judge rendered judgment ordering the complainant and all others claiming right under her, to vacate the premises she was occupying. Complainant did not appeal the decision. Instead, she filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order with the Regional Trial Court. On 14 March 2003, respondent judge granted execution upon plaintiff's motion because upon the expiration of the period for appeal without any appeal being perfected, execution must issue as a matter of right.

Respondent Clerk of Court issued on 12 May 2003, a Writ of Execution which respondent sheriff personally served on complainant on 13 May 2003. This is shown by her acknowledgment on both the writ of execution and on the notice to vacate, copies of which were attached to the Comment. Respondent sheriff likewise served copies on the writ of execution on the Presidential Commission on Urban Poor (PCUP). This is also shown by the rubber stamp impressed on both the writ of execution and the notice to vacate, copies of which were attached to the Comment.

Respondents argue that R.A. 7279 and its implementing rules in E.O. 152 do not apply to executions or demolitions pursuant to a court Order. Moreover, this law protects only those considered homeless and underprivileged and complainant never offered proof that she was one. As a matter of fact, in a letter from BSDO Hernandez which is attached to the records of the case, the property is referred to as the "Yumang Compound" and complainant is categorized as "nag papaupa ng bahay".

Respondents belie complainant's claim that there has been a demolition. As a matter of fact, respondent judge has not yet resolved plaintiff's "Motion to Issue Writ of Demolition" and "Urgent Motion to Cite Complainant in Contempt of Court".

Respondents further aver that this case was primarily filed to harass the respondents and as a ground for complainant's motion to disqualify the respondent judge.

3.������ REPLY filed on 25 August 2003 alleging the same arguments alleged in the original complaint. Complainant insists that the demolition not being in accordance with R.A. 7279 and E.O. No. 152, respondents should be sanctioned. Moreover, it is claimed that the Civil Code rule on prescription protects the complainant against any demolition or ejectment.

EVALUATION: A reading of the documents attached to the different pleadings reveals the fact that complainant is the defendant in a civil case for ejectment filed with the MeTC presided by respondent judge. In said case, judgment was rendered declaring plaintiff entitled to the possession of the property in question and ordering the eviction of the defendant (complainant herein) and all those who claim possession through her. This judgment became final and executory, inasmuch as the complainant failed to perfect an appeal. For this reason, respondent judge was ministerially bound to issue the writ of execution. If she refused, she would have been administratively liable.

R.A. No. 7279 and E.O. No. 152 on which complainant places undue reliance does not exactly prohibit courts from performing their functions. From a careful reading of this law it appears that it is aimed at demolitions or evictions done by government entities and local government units. They do not apply to privately owned lands to which the owners are entitled to possess and this right is superior to that of a squatter or trespasser who withholds the possession from the lawful possessor.

Contrary to the claim of the complainant, respondents did notify the Presidential Commission on Urban Poor about the projected execution of the judgment in the case. That the latter office did not object to the said execution only goes to show that it felt it had no basis to stop the same.

Evidently, complainant has failed to make a case against any one of the respondents. On the contrary, they have satisfactorily established the fact that all they did was to perform their duties.

RECOMMENDATION:��������� It is respectfully recommended that the present administrative matter be DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with the facts and the law, the Court hereby approves and adopts the same.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Ma. Victoria A. Estoesta, Clerk of Court Lorenzo R. Datiles, Jr. and Sheriff Jesus R. Ramos is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA

Executive Officer

Endnotes:

* Should be "de Yumang", Rollo, p.3.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011