ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA-IPI No. 06-2359-P. August 30, 2006]
NEPTHAL B. CALAYCAY v.
HENRY B. BRACEROS, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34,
Third Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 30, 2006 .
A.M. OCA-IPI No. 06-2359-P (Nepthal B. Calaycay v. Henry B. Braceros, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Panabo City)
For consideration is the Report dated 18 July 2006 on the administrative matter submitted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
In a Complaint-Affidavit dated 29 November 2005, complainant Nepthal B. Calaycay charges respondent Henry B. Braceros, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court of Panabo City, Branch 34, with Abuse of Authority, Acts of Oppression and Ignorance of the Law relative to Civil Case No. 96-05 entitled "Sps. Isidro Dalagan and Felicisima Dalagan v. Nepthal B. Calaycay, et al."
Complainant, one of the defendants in the civil case, narrates that
his family owns a residential lot in Barangay Nanyo,
The trial court ruled against complainant and his co-defendants. Accordingly, the trial court issued a writ of execution and, later on, a writ of demolition. Complainant and his co-defendants elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
Complainant further states that he and his co-defendants filed a motion to defer the implementation of the writ of demolition. Despite the knowledge of the filing of said motion, complainant alleges that respondent Sheriff continued to demolish defendants' building and improvements on their property. He avers that the writ was not properly implemented as respondent Sheriff did not coordinate with the barangay officials; he did not make a proper inventory of the building materials; and he did not file any return of the service of the writ of demolition.
In his Comment dated 9 March 2006, respondent Sheriff relates that on 28 March 1996, the trial court issued a writ of injunction directing complainant and his co-defendants to remove the structures they had built which were obstructing the spouses Dalagan's access to the provincial road. At the time, they had only built a barbed wire fence and a structure made of nipa and coco lumber. As the case progressed, complainant and his co-defendants built a concrete fence and house which, this time, completely obstructed the spouses Dalagan's properties.
On 17 September 1997, the trial court ruled in favor of the spouses Dalagan. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on 19 January 2000 and made the writ of injunction permanent. On 12 January 2004, the trial court approved the spouses Dalagan's motion for demolition of defendants' properties. Complainant and his co-defendants moved for a reconsideration of this order but were denied relief by the trial court. On 21 October 2005, complainant and his co-defendants filed a motion to defer implementation of the writ which was not acted upon by the trial court as no proper substitution of counsel was made.
Respondent sheriff avers that he proceeded to implement the writ because there was no restraining order preventing him from so doing. He even claims to have conferred with the judge and clerk of court of the trial court before proceeding with the demolition. He maintains that his job as a sheriff is purely ministerial in nature.
Respondent sheriff also states that he made all the preliminary requirements and sent the required notices to complainant and other defendants. On the day of the demolition, police officers accompanied him to secure the premises from possible theft and violence. Contrary to complainant's allegations, he coordinated with barangay officials and discussed with them the importance of their presence during the demolition.
The OCA in its Report dated 18 July 2006 recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. The OCA noted that the trial court decided Civil Case No. 95-06 on 17 September 1997 in favor of the spouses Dalagan, ruling as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants:
1. Ordering the said Defendants, their agents or laborers or any person acting in their behalf, to remove their house and all other illegal constructions on the road lot fronting the lots of the Plaintiffs, to allow Plaintiffs free passage including the public who have dealing with the Plaintiffs;
2. To allow the Plaintiffs to have ingress and egress from their lots to the government road after passing the road right of way;
3. The injunction by Order of this Court dated March 19, 1996 and the writ of injunction issued on March 28, 1996 are hereby made permanent;
4. No damages are regarded for want of proof on the same and without pronouncement as to costs.
This decision was affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals and became final and executory on 16 February 2000. Pursuant to the writ of execution issued on 31 May 2002, respondent Sheriff served on complainant and defendants a notice to vacate which they ignored. Spouses Dalagan filed a motion for demolition which the trial court granted on 12 January 2004. The trial court nevertheless gave complainants and his co-defendants twenty (20) days to voluntarily remove their house and illegally constructed structures on the road. This complainant and his co-defendants failed to do, as reported by respondent Sheriff in a Sheriff's Return dated 17 February 2004.
Thus, the trial court issued a writ of demolition on 20 February 2004, which on 25 August 2005 was ordered to be implemented without further delay. After sending complainant and his co-defendants the first and second Sheriff's Notice of Demolition, respondent Sheriff proceeded with the demolition on 8 November 2005.
The OCA did not find any irregularity in respondent Sheriff's acts. Upon receipt of the writ of demolition dated 20 February 2004, it became the ministerial duty of respondent Sheriff to proceed with reasonable promptness to execute the same in accordance with its mandate. [1] cralaw In the absence of instructions to the contrary or a restraining order, he is bound to serve the writ with dispatch. [2] cralaw
The allegation of abuse of authority in the implementation of the writ is unsubstantiated. Besides, respondent Sheriff was able to show that he had sent notices to complainant and his co-defendants regarding the impending demolition, after which, he had made the proper return to the court.
Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and the
facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Henry B.
Braceros, Sheriff IV,
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Bernabe v. Eguia, A.M. No. P-03-1742 (A.M. OCA-IPI No. 02-1307), 18 September 2003, 411 SCRA 259, 268.
[2] cralaw Portes v. Deputy Provincial Sheriff Tepace, A.M. P-97-1235, 30 January 1997, 267 SCRA 185, 193.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
