A.M. No. MTJ-02-1395 - Baikong Akang Camsa vs. Rendon

The case stems from a complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019) against Judge Aurelio D. Rendon and for gross ignorance of the law and violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for public officials against Sheriff Edwin G. Cabug.
The complaint arose from a decision rendered on 22 May 1997, involving a dispute between Philippine Evangelical Enterprises and defendant Bai Akong (C)amsa regarding the possession of two parcels of land, which led to various orders for restoration, demolition, and monetary payments.

Restore the plaintiff in complete possession of two specific lots (Lot No. 3 and Lot No. 1, as per the given survey numbers).
Remove a wire fence erected on the property at the defendant’s own expense.
Pay attorney’s fees and litigation expenses amounting to ₱50,000.00 and ₱10,000.00 respectively, along with exemplary damages of ₱40,000.00 and the cost of the suit.

The decision was not appealed and became final and executory, prompting the issuance of a writ of execution on 15 December 1997.

Respondent sheriff failed to enforce the original writ of execution properly.
Complainant alleged that an alias writ of execution was issued by Judge Rendon (purportedly motu proprio) which incorrectly included an order for demolition—a directive not contained in the dispositive portion of the 22 May 1997 decision.
Additionally, the complainant accused Judge Rendon of demanding ₱60,000.00 (accepting only ₱30,000.00) prior to the decision in exchange for a favorable ruling, while asserting that the sheriff used extraordinary force in enforcing the writ.

Respondent Judge Rendon denied issuing an alias writ motu proprio and maintained that the alias writ of execution was issued upon the plaintiff’s motion and was in conformity with the original decision.
The judge also strongly disavowed having demanded or received any money as a bribe.
Respondent Sheriff Cabug asserted that his enforcement was carried out following standard procedures, noting that the plaintiff’s resistance forced him to seek assistance from military personnel (Provincial Commander and his assistant).

Subsequent to the filing of an omnibus manifestation by the daughter of Judge Rendon notifying his death (on 01 February 2001), the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a thorough investigation given the seriousness of the charges and conflicting allegations.
The case against Judge Rendon was dismissed due to his death, while the complaint against Sheriff Cabug was referred to Executive Judge German M. Malcampo for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The OCA, through its memorandum dated 03 October 2002, evaluated the case, focusing on the interpretation of the alias writ and the applicable procedural rules.

The alias writ of execution directed the removal of the wire fence and other improvements at the defendant’s expense, which was clearly a departure from the original decision’s order.
It was identified that Section 10(d) of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that demolition or removal of improvements on an executed property can only be done upon a special order of the court after due motion and hearing.
Despite being informed of this rule, respondent sheriff Cabug executed the demolition without securing the required special order, thereby exceeding his ministerial functions and exhibiting discretionary behavior not authorized by the writ.

Based on the investigation’s findings and the recommendations of the OCA, Sheriff Edwin G. Cabug was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
He was penalized with a fine of ₱5,000.00, with a stern warning that repetition of a similar infraction would result in more severe repercussions.
Additional charges regarding manifest partiality and violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
The case underscored that allegations of misconduct affect the public’s trust in judicial officers, and that even a complainant’s affidavit of desistance does not divest the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to correct wrongdoings in the administration of justice.

Whether the alias writ of execution, which included a demolition order, was properly issued in conformity with the 22 May 1997 decision.
Whether the execution of a demolition without the court’s special order (as mandated under Section 10(d) of Rule 39) constitutes an abuse or extension of the sheriff’s ministerial powers.
Whether the allegations of a bribe demand and partial payment made by Judge Rendon have any evidentiary basis affecting the merits of the complaint.
What administrative sanctions should be imposed on a court official who disregards established procedural rules in the enforcement of a writ of execution.