ChanRobles Virtual law Library

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1640-MTJ. June 26, 2006]

RE: MR. TIRSO G. CRUZ AND MR. RICARDO GC SUCGANG v. JUDGE AZNAR LINDAYAG, MTC, PANDI, BULACAN; CLERK OF COURT RODELIO E. MARCELO, MTC, ANGAT, BULACAN; SHERIFF ROSELLER LOPEZ, RTC, BRANCH 21, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN; AND SHERIFF MANOLITO EUSEBIO, RTC, BRANCH 82, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUNE 26, 2006

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1640-MTJ (Re: Mr. Tirso G. Cruz and Mr. Ricardo GC Sucgang v. Judge Aznar Lindayag, MTC, Pandi, Bulacan; Clerk of Court Rodelio E. Marcelo, MTC, Angat, Bulacan; Sheriff Roseller Lopez, RTC, Branch 21, Malolos City, Bulacan; and Sheriff Manolito Eusebio, RTC, Branch 82, Malolos City, Bulacan.)

Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

In a JOINT AFFIDAVIT COMPLAINT with annexes dated 4 October 2004, Mr. Tirso G. Cruz and Mr. Ricardo GC Sucgang charge Judge Aznar Lindayag, Clerk of Court Rodelio E. Marcelo, and Sheriffs Roseller Lopez and Manolito Eusebio with Grave Abuse of Discretion relative to Civil Case No. 377-96 entitled "Greymar's, Inc. vs. Francisco Abargos, et al." for Ejectment.

Complainants allege that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the Motion for Demolition of Greymar's, Inc. in 2004 notwithstanding the fact that the decision was rendered way back on 23 July 1997 or after more than seven (7) years without any new case filed for revival of judgment. They also charge respondent Clerk of Court for issuing the Writ of Demolition and respondent sheriffs for enforcing the writ and destroying their houses. Moreover, complainants also allege that through graft and corruption, Greymar's, Inc. was able to transfer an abandoned 15-meter wide public road in its name aside from ejecting the people who have stayed there for a long time.

In his COMMENT (with annexes) dated 9 December 2004, respondent Judge Aznar Lindayag admits, that while the judgment in the subject civil case for ejectment was indeed rendered on 23 July 1997, the complainants and their co-defendants filed an appeal before the RTC, which affirmed the judgment. Subsequently, the judgment became final and executory on 26 February 1999 per entry of the Court of Appeals which denied the petition for review. Moreover, upon grant of execution, complainants with their co-defendants resorted to certiorari and prohibition before the RTC, which enjoined the execution through a writ of preliminary injunction issued on 11 October 2000 until it (case for certiorari and prohibition) was dismissed on 15 April 2002. The 15 April 2002 RTC decision was raised on appeal before the Court of Appeals which rendered a decision on 13 July 2004 denying the appeal and upholding the execution while admonishing complainants and their co-defendants for delaying the administration of justice. Respondent judge thus posits the clear conclusion that the 5-year prescriptive period was interrupted by the injunction issued by the RTC on 11 October 2000 up to the time of the finality of the Court of Appeals' decision rendered on 13 July 2004. Hence, the grant of the writ of demolition is proper and within the 5-year prescriptive period.

In a JOINT COMMENT (with annexes) dated 17 December 2004, respondent sheriffs Manolito G. Eusebio and Roseller Lopez assert the same factual antecedents pointed out by respondent Judge Lindayag in his comment. Respondent sheriffs aver that complainants were the ones who kept on raising issues before different courts, including the RTC and the Court of Appeals, which resulted in the delay of the enforcement of the writ of demolition. Respondent sheriffs claim that complainants cannot use as basis the passage of seven (7) years from the rendition of judgment by the trial court because the delayed execution of judgment was due to their own acts. It is argued that with the interruptions of the 5-year prescriptive period, the implementation of the Writ of Demolition was within the period prescribed by law.

Respondent Clerk of Court Rodelio E. Marcelo however failed to give his comment despite a tracer dated 20 May 2005 duly received in the MTC Angat, Bulacan on 7 June 2005 as per Registry Return Receipt No. 5260.

EVALUATION: The complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.

It is clear from the antecedent facts that the 5-year prescriptive period pursuant to Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure has not yet lapsed. While the trial court rendered its decision on 23 July 1997 such became final and executory only on 26 February 1999 from which the 5-year prescriptive period for a revival of judgment is reckoned. On 11 October 2000, complainants pursued an action for certiorari and prohibition, assailing the writ of execution, which interrupted the 5-year prescriptive period until the finality of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals on 13 July 2004 affirming the RTC decision denying it. Thus, it is clear that the 5-year prescriptive period reckoned from 26 February 1999, excluding the period from 11 October 2000 through 13 July 2004, has not lapsed, and consequently, the rule on revival of judgment does not apply. Otherwise, undue prolongation of legal controversies would result at the expedient of assailing the execution of a final and executory judgment with the end that its resolution be overtaken by the passage of five (5) years so that a case for revival of judgment need to be pursued even if the execution of the prior final judgment is still under contention. The law does not countenance such an event.

Given the legality and propriety of the grant of a Writ of Demolition within the 5-year prescriptive period, respondent sheriffs did not err in enforcing the writ.

Anent the allegation that, through graft and corruption, Greymar's, Inc. was able to transfer an abandoned public road in its name, this administrative complaint is not the proper venue to address the issue. Moreover, complainants have utterly failed to furnish evidence in support of the alleged graft and corruption committed by respondents.

In fine, we note that respondent Clerk of Court Rodelio E. Marcelo did not file his comment since he never received the 1^st Indorsement dated 8 November 2004 and the 1^st Tracer dated 20 May 2005. Per verification with the OCA-Leave Division and OCA-Office of Administrative Services, Mr. Rodelio E. Marcelo had been on Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) since November 2004. Besides, the Indorsement and Tracer were inadvertently sent to MTC, Angat, Bulacan where he was supposed to be assigned, but he was detailed in the MTCC, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan since 2002 until the time he went AWOL.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant administrative complaint against Judge Aznar Lindayag, Clerk of Court Rodelio Marcelo, Sheriff Roseller Lopez and Sheriff Manolito Eusebio be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

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

In Pangan v. Ganay , ^[1] cralaw the Court held that, while it is the Court's duty to investigate and determine the truth behind every matter in complaints against Judges and other court personnel, it is also its duty to see to it that they are protected and exonerated from baseless administrative charges. The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon its magistrates, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Aznar Lindayag, MTC, Pandi, Bulacan; Clerk of Court Rodelio E. Marcelo, MTC, Angat, Bulacan; Sheriff Roseller Lopez, RTC, Branch 21, Malolos City, Bulacan; and Sheriff Manolito Eusebio, RTC, Branch 82, Malolos City, Bulacan is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw 445 SCRA 574, 590.

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