ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-2415-P. October 9, 2006]
PILAR CALUBID v. JASON G. LATORRE, SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CATBALOGAN, SAMAR
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT. 9, 2006 .
A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-2415-P (Pilar Calubid v. Jason G. Latorre, Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Catbalogan, Samar)
Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated August 24, 2006, to wit:
1. COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT dated January 31, 2006 of Ms. Pilar Calubid charging respondent Sheriff Jason Latorre of Grave Abuse of Authority relative to Civil Case No. 912, entitled "Josefa Tanseco vs. Pilar Calubid and/or Mom's Transit" for Ejectment and Damages.
Complainant is the defendant in the above cited case. She avers that on December 20, 2005 at around 10 o'clock in the morning respondent Sheriff Latorre together with some policemen, went to the property that she is renting from Josefa Tanseco to implement the Writ of Demolition that was issued by the Municipal Trial Court of Catbalogan, Samar. She claims that when she explained to respondent sheriff that he cannot implement the writ of demolition because she has an unresolved Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution the latter told her that: "I will execute the writ and will not wait for the resolution of said motion, by Judge Salvador Jakosalem and that if need be, you can just file an administrative case against me, because no one can prevent me from entering the premises."
Complainant avers that despite her plea respondent Sheriff Latorre and his companions entered her premises and proceeded with the demolition of the structures erected thereon. As a consequence of the illegal acts of respondent Sheriff, complainant suffered financial loss and prejudice amounting to Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00).
2. COMMENT dated May 4, 2006 of respondent Sheriff Jason G. Latorre.
He brands as bereft of any factual and material basis the allegation of the complainant that he uttered "I will not wait for the resolution of Judge Jakosalem, and you can just file a case against me if you want because no one can prevent me from entering the premises." He explains that he never uttered those words and asserts that his role as sheriff is purely ministerial and he has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. He explains that the Writ of Demolition was forwarded to the Office of the Clerk of Court (RTC-OCC) from the MTC, Catbalogan, Samar, with the request to cause the implementation and execution of the writ. The writ was later on referred to him for appropriate action, hence, he was without any discretion but to proceed with the execution of the writ of demolition.
Respondent narrates that the Writ of Execution was implemented on March 21, 2005, by putting iron fences in front of the premises after the notice to vacate was ignored by the complainant. However, in the afternoon of that same day respondent learned that complainant destroyed the fences.
He claims that in view of the obstinate refusal of the defendant to surrender possession of the property a Writ of Demolition was issued by the court on November 30, 2005. He maintains that no rights were ever violated during the implementation of the writ. If there were motions filed prior to the demolition proceedings, the same were meant to prolong complainant's possession over the subject property since the case for Ejectment has already been decided with finality by the court.
Respondent maintains that he only acted well within the bounds of the law. He has no liability, administrative, civil or criminal as the acts complained of were done in obedience to a lawful order and in the performance of his lawful duty.
EVALUATION:
The complaint must be dismissed. Sheriffs are ministerial officers. They are agents of the law and not agents of the parties. In general, a sheriff is the proper officer to execute all writs returnable to the court, unless another is appointed by special order for the purpose. It is not his duty to decide on the truth or sufficiency of the processes committed to him for service. (2002 Revised Manual for Clerk of Court). Moreover, it has been ruled that in ejectment proceedings the decision in favor of the plaintiff is immediately executory. The plaintiff is entitled to reacquire possession of the subject property after judgment is rendered in his favor in order to prevent further damage to him arising from the loss of possession of the property in question. (Hualam Construction and Development vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 85466, 16 October 1992, 214 SCRA 612).
When respondent sheriff received the Order for a Writ of Demolition dated November 30, 2005 issued by the Municipal Trial Court it was mandatory upon him to implement the same without further delay. It has been settled that 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. He is supposed to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter. (Judy Sismaet vs. Eriberto R. Sabas, etc, et al., A.M. No. P-03-1680, May 27). Or as stated in another case, "Unless restrained by a court order, a sheriff should see to it that the execution of judgments is not unduly delayed". (Salvador L. Bernabe vs. Winston T. Eguia, A.M. No. P-03-1724, September 18, 2003).
It is noted further that this matter was filed in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Samar by way of a criminal complaint for Grave Coercion against the herein respondent in I.S. No. 02834-06-PI. The complaint was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence by the investigating prosecutor in a Resolution dated April 19, 2006 and approved by the Provincial Prosecutor.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant case be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA.
It must be stressed that the duty to execute a writ is mandatory and ministerial. [1] cralaw As a ministerial officer, a sheriff performs the duties of the office in the context of a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner, and without regard to the exercise of his or her own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. [2] 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. [3] cralaw This is so because final judgments of the courts become empty victories for the prevailing parties if not immediately enforced. [4] cralaw In the instant case, respondent sheriff was merely performing his ministerial duty to implement the writ of execution issued by the RTC.
Considering the foregoing, the instant administrative complaint against Jason G. Latorre is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Duenas v. Mandi, L-65889, June 30, 1987, 151 SCRA 530, 543.
[2] cralaw Sismaet v. Sabas, A.M. No. P-03-1680, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 241, 247-248.
[3] cralaw Sayson v. Luna, A.M. No. P-04-1829, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 502, 505.
[4] 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
