ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1919-P. October 11, 2004]

GAMBOA vs. SORIANO

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 11 2004 .

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1919-P (Dante Gamboa, et al. vs. Virgilio A. Soriano and Florencio SJ. Alcantara Sheriffs, IV, Br.80, RTC and OCC, Morong, Rizal.)

Considering the Report dated August 9, 2004 of Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., to wit:

Received by this Office is the 1^st Indorsement dated 29 March -2004 of Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Victor C. Fernandez referring to the Office of the Court Administrator for appropriate action the records of OMB-L-C-04-0185-C and OMB-L-A-04-0118-C both entitled "Dante Gamboa, et al. vs. Virgilio A. Soriano, et al."

The records of the two (2) aforementioned Ombudsman cases pertain to the criminal and administrative complaints filed by Dante Gamboa, et al. against respondents Sheriffs IV Virgilio A. Soriano and Florencio SJ. Alcantara both of RTC, Morong, Rizal for Violation of R.A. 3019, Grave Coercion, Illegal Demolition and Grave Misconduct.

In its joint Order dated 29 March 2004, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dismissed the subject criminal and administrative complaints against the respondent sheriffs citing the ruling laid down by the Court in the case of Caoibes vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, July 19, 2001.

The complainants' charges against the respondents came in the wake of the decision in favor of the plaintiffs rendered by the MTC, Tanay, Rizal relative to Civil Case No. 1276 entitled "Heirs of Bienvenido Buenaventura vs. Bibiano Bo, et al." for Forcible Entry. The Writ of Demolition issued by the court was served on the herein complainants by the respondent sheriffs.

According to the complainants, since they were not included as party-defendants in the subject ejectment case thus, they filed a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order before the RTC, Morong, Rizal to stop the respondent sheriffs from executing and implementing the decision and writ of demolition issued by the court. However, despite the pendency of the petition they filed before the RTC, Morong, the respondents together with the heirs of Buenaventura and some armed men proceeded to demolish their houses/structures and forcibly ejected them.

In their COMMENT dated 10 June 2004 respondents Sheriffs Florencio SJ. Alcantara and Virgilio Soriano admitted that they demolished the houses inside the lot owned by the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1276 in order to implement the decision of the MTC, Tanay. However, they claimed that before they demolished the subject houses a notice to vacate the premises was served by them on the defendants and all persons claiming rights under them. Also, the RTC of Morong where the herein complainants filed a petition for injunction did not issue any temporary restraining order to enjoin them from implementing the writ of demolition earlier issued by the MTC, Tanay.

Respondents added that:

5.����������� That the claims of complainants Susan Lizardo, Lani Egbalic and Nilda Antang that they were not served with the notice to vacate has no basis because they refused to receive the same and as an alternative mode of service we tendered the notice to them by leaving a copy thereof;

6.����������� The allegations of complainants Dante Gamboa, Diosdada Fernandez, Remy Terrible, Blandina Camo, Estrella Tuazon, Excelsa Cruz and Lea Vera that they were not party defendants in the ejectment case nor claiming rights from any of the defendants have no merit. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Oro Cam Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, GR 128743, November 29,1999 "It is well settled that a judgment in an ejectment suit is binding not only upon the defendants in the suit, but also against those not made parties thereto, if they are: [a] trespassers, squatters or agents of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; [b] guests or other occupants of the premises with the permission of the defendant; [c] transferees pendente lite; [d] sub lessees or [e] members of the family relatives and other privies of the defendant;"

After a careful perusal of the records of this case, the undersigned believes that the subject complaint against the respondent sheriffs should be dismissed. It appears that the demolition of the complainants' houses was made possible through the issuance of the writ of demolition by the court, MTC, Tanay, Rizal, in order to implement the decision it earlier rendered which was already affirmed by the Regional Trial Court of Morong, Rizal. Also, there was no temporary restraining order or any injunctive relief issued by a higher court that will prevent the respondents from proceeding with the demolition.

Clearly, the respondents only complied with the directive issued to them by the court when they demolished the structures belonging to the complainants. As held by the Court in a long line of cases, "When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate."

Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant complaint against respondents Sheriffs IV Virgilio A. Soriano and Florencio SJ. Alcantara, both of RTC, Morong, Rizal, be DISMISSED.

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

Accordingly, the administrative complaint against Virgilio A. Soriano and Florencio SJ. Alcantara, both Sheriffs IV, Branch 80, RTC, Morong, Rizal, and OCC, respectively, is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE