ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2140-P. March 20, 2006]
DRA. AMANDA T. CRUZ v. SHERIFF IV EUGENIO S. SORIASO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55, MANILA
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated MAR. 20, 2006
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2140-P (Dra . Amanda T. Cruz v. Sheriff IV Eugenio S. Soriaso, Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, em>Manila)
Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated December 9, 2005, to wit:
1. COMPLAINT dated February 15, 2005 (with enclosures) of Dra. Amanda Cruz charging respondent Sheriff IV Eugenio S. Soriaso of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Manila, with Grave Misconduct (Dishonesty), Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority relative to the implementation of the Writ of Execution issued by Judge Manuel Barrios, of the same court, in Civil Case No. 01-99816. Records show that Civil Case No. 01-99816 is an appealed case wherein complainant was the appellant from the unfavorable decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 23, Manila, in Civil Case No. 167310-CV, entitled "Petron Corporation v. Spouses Francisco Galman Cruz and Amanda Ternida-Cruz" for Ejectment.
Complainant avers that respondent implemented the aforesaid Writ in an illegal, unconstitutional, cruel, barbaric and uncivilized manner. She alleges that respondent proceeded with the execution despite being notified of the legal basis of her family's refusal to vacate the premises, in deliberate defiance of the status quo order dated June 23, 2000 issued by Judge Hermogenes Liwag of RTC, Manila, Branch 55, and the Resolution of this Court dated September 10, 1999. Worst, without securing a break-open order from the court, respondent broke into the premises thereby shattering the glass doors thereof with the use of mallet, in conspiracy with the members of the PNP and SWAT together with the hired goons of Petron, through the Lockheed Security Agency. Once inside the sales office, respondent's group bodily extracted complainant and members of her family out of the premises and prevented them from taking their personal belongings including the gasoline collections for four days amounting to Five Million Pesos [P5,000,000.00] that has not been returned to them until now for which she filed a criminal complaint for robbery against herein respondent. Respondent also ordered for the taking by force and intimidation of seven [7] gasoline tankers loaded with different fuel products, and three of them were taken to the R-10 MMDA Compound without any writ of levy [or] forfeiture order and despite the fact that those trucks are not involved in the ejectment case. This resulted to the pilferage of the fuel products as the seals in those trucks were later on found to have been broken and tampered with and cannot be released without the order of respondent.
Complainant also avers that during a 12-hour stand-off, respondent ordered the arrest and detention of six members of her family, including herself, without any warrant of arrest which was made through the indispensable cooperation of the members of the PNP who wielded high powered guns and used superior force. They were manhandled and bodily carried out of the premises like pigs to be slaughtered. Respondent, who ironically calls himself as an officer of the court, stripped them of their dignity. She alleges that this event was seen abroad and by the entire country prompting the Commission on Human Rights to motu proprio conduct its own investigation on the blatant disregard of the rules on due process and in violation of their human rights and civil liberties duly enshrined in our Constitution.
Complainant attaches several newspaper clippings showing some photos of what had transpired during the implementation of the Writ of Execution.
2. COMMENT dated April 15, 2005 [with enclosures] of respondent Sheriff IV Eugenio Soriaso.
Respondent avers that complainant's narration of facts is baseless. He narrates that on May 23, 2000, Petron Corporation filed a complaint for ejectment against complainant's family which was raffled to Branch 23 of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, presided by Judge Tingaraan U. Guiling, docketed as Civil Case No. 167310-CV. On June 15, 2000, complainant and her husband filed a complaint for damages with prayer for issuance of TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The case was raffled to Branch 55, Regional Trial Court, Manila, presided then by Judge Hermogenes Liwag, docketed as Civil Case No. 97736. In the case for damages, Judge Liwag issued an order dated June 23, 2000 mandating the parties to "maintain the status quo until after the ejectment suit filed by the defendant corporation with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila against the petitioner in this case shall have been decided." Said order also specifies that the incident of injunction was rendered moot and academic by stipulation of the parties.
On October 9, 2000, Judge Guiling rendered a decision in the ejectment case in favor of Petron Corporation. Complainant appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court and incidentally the case was raffled to RTC-Manila, Branch 55 which was Judge Liwag's sala. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 01-99816. Judge Liwag affirmed with modification the decision of Judge Guiling. Still unsatisfied, complainant elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals only to lose again as Judge Liwag's decision was sustained.
On October 5, 2004, upon motion of Petron, RTC-Manila, Branch 55, now presided by Judge Manuel Barrios, issued an order for the issuance of a Writ of Execution to implement the April 3, 2001 Decision of the late Judge Liwag. The Writ of Execution was issued on October 22, 2004.
Respondent alleges that during the implementation of said Writ on January 11, 2005, the personnel manning the sales office and service pumps willingly and peacefully vacated the premises when informed of the pending execution. With the station free from any occupant, a temporary perimeter fence was erected by a contractor of plaintiff Petron Corporation. Soon afterwards, complainant arrived and made a scene at the Petron Station and, in full view of the public and the media covering it, complainant bombarded him with profanities, hurled invectives and vicious insults. Since he refused to be drawn to a confrontation with the complainant, he turned [a] deaf ear to all her threats and insults and stood his ground that the writ must be implemented. Unknown to him, an employee of complainant was able to sneak inside the subject premises and managed to start the engine of one of the tanker trucks parked inside. Without warning, complainant instructed the said employee-driver to destroy the perimeter fence which order the driver obeyed. Then another employee armed by an acetylene torch burned and shredded into pieces the perimeter fence that was ran over by the truck driver. The PNP personnel on site simply watched the proceedings. Considering the indifference of the police and to avoid violent confrontation with complainant's family, he relented and pulled out from the premises.
Respondent claims that he returned to the premises on January 18, 2005, together with some members of WPD PNP Personnel, SWAT member, Crowd Dispersal Unit (CDU) and female policewomen on hand for the execution. Relying on the settled rule that, in execution, a sheriff is authorized to avail himself of police assistance considering the fierce and unlawful resistance of complainant's family. As before, complainant's employees vacated the premises peacefully and so another perimeter fence was constructed by the contractor of Petron Corporation. At the same time, three tanker trucks driven by complainant's employees were removed from the premises and escorted by PNP personnel to the MMDA impounding area. The four other trucks which could not be driven anymore remained inside the premises. The PNP personnel, on the other hand, established a phalanx of policemen and sealed off the area from intruders. Thereafter, complainant, her husband and sons whose identity he only learned later, arrived and pushed their way inside the station. Complainant's sons shoved policemen in the area and resorted to violence, threats and intimidation. Hence, they were arrested for their violent acts. Meanwhile, complainant then went inside the vacant and deserted sales office, locked herself inside, refused to leave the premises and taunted him into breaking into the sales office she occupied. Upon the other hand, complainant's husband, Atty. Francisco Cruz, mocked and humiliated him and threatened to file administrative charges against him if he will insist on entering the sales office without securing first a "break-open order" from the court.
Making the case of Morta v. Sa�ez (343 SCRA 177) as authority where the Court held, "that when a party refuses to yield possession of a property as ordered by a writ of execution, the sheriff must oust the deforciant from the subject property," respondent ordered the removal of complainant and her family from the premises through the assistance of the PNP personnel and Lockheed Security Agency. Thereafter, immediate inventory of all the properties and equipments was conducted in the presence of Barangay officials and members of the media. He brands as fabrication complainant's assertion that there was a P5-million cash collection which was allegedly not returned to them. The subject premises were immediately turned over to the contractor of Petron Corporation and the Lockheed Security Agency.
On the issue of securing a "break-open" order first, respondent
contends that there was no need for it since the complainant's employees
peacefully vacated the sales office and service pumps on
EVALUATION: After a careful perusal of the records of the case, we are convinced that there is no ground to hold respondent administratively liable for his actions relative to the implementation of the Writ of Execution in the ejectment case against complainant's family.
In resisting the enforcement of the writ issued against her and her family, complainant claims for its legal basis a Supreme Court Resolution dated September 10, 1999 and the order dated June 23, 2000 of Judge Liwag in the case for damages which complainant filed as retaliatory action against Petron Corporation. Records, however, show that complainant's reliance on the two aforementioned issuances to prevent the execution is clearly misplaced. The aforecited Supreme Court resolution has nothing to do with the ejectment case as it refers to the denial of the Court of the petition filed by Petron Corporation assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed the decision of the lower courts and ordered the dismissal of the third detainer case filed by Petron. With respect to the June 23, 2000 Order of Judge Liwag, although it speaks of maintenance of status quo, the same was not a permanent injunction that could prevent the execution. The said order stated that "there will be maintenance of status quo at least until after the ejectment case filed by defendant Petron Corporation with the Metropolitan [Trial] Court of Manila against the petitioners." The same order specifies that the incident of injunction was rendered moot and academic by the stipulations of the parties. The injunction was automatically dissolved when the MeTC-Branch 23, Manila, decided the ejectment suit against complainant's family.
With regard to the manner by which respondent implemented the writ, there is no showing that he was motivated by bad faith, malice or any ill-motive in carrying into effect what he believed was the right thing to do. If ever complainant felt offended by the way it was carried out, it is not respondent sheriff who must be faulted but they themselves for their unlawful and deliberate defiance of a lawful order of the court. Respondent sheriff only did what is expected of him consistent with his cited ruling in Vda . De Tisado v. Tablizo , 253 SCRA 653 [1996], to wit:
"The mere fact that defendant in a threatening manner prohibited respondent Trampe from entering the premises is no excuse for him to retreat and refuse to enforce the writ of execution. A deputy sheriff is a frontline representative of the justice system in this country. If he shows fear or worse is cowed by mere threats from enforcing the legitimate orders of court, then by his cowardly act, he diminishes the judiciary. He erodes the faith and trust of the citizenry in the ability and capacity of the courts to settle disputes and to safeguard their rights. Specifically, he breaches his sworn duty to uphold the majesty of the law and the integrity of the justice system."
Neither can the allegations of robbery and pilferage serve as grounds to sustain this administrative complaint for it would be premature to do so considering the pendency of the criminal complaint filed by complainant against respondent on the same incident.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of this Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant administrative complaint against Sheriff IV Eugenio S. Soriaso be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
We adopt the foregoing findings and recommendation of the OCA.
A sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ is mandatory and purely ministerial; [1] cralaw the order of the court must be executed strictly to the letter, leaving the sheriff with no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. [2] cralaw This is so because final judgments of the courts become empty victories for the prevailing parties if not immediately enforced. [3] cralaw In the instant case, respondent sheriff was merely performing his ministerial duty to implement the writ of demolition issued by the Regional Trial Court.
Considering the foregoing, the instant administrative complaint against Sheriff IV Eugenio S. Soriaso is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Duenas v. Mandi , G.R. No. L-65889, June 30, 1987, 151 SCRA 530, 543.
[2] cralaw Sayson v. Luna, A.M. No. P-04-1829, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 502, 505.
[3] cralaw Mendoza v. Sheriff IV Tuquero , 412 Phil. 435, 442 (2001), citing Moya v. Bassig , 138 SCRA 49, 52-53 (1985).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
