Title
Bautista vs. Cruz
Case
A.M. No. P-12-3062
Decision Date
Jul 25, 2012
Sheriff reprimanded for procedural lapses in implementing writ of execution, failing to serve notices properly, and neglecting periodic reporting duties.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-12-3062)

Facts:

  1. Background of the Case
    The case originated from a Complaint for Ejectment with Prayer for Writ of Demolition and Damages filed by Normandy R. Bautista (complainant), Rosamund Posadas, and Madonna Ramos against Teresita Vallejos and Luisa Basconcillo (defendants). The plaintiffs claimed co-ownership of a parcel of land in Rosales, Pangasinan, occupied by the defendants.

  2. Court Decisions

    • On 21 March 2007, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to surrender possession of the property and refrain from building additional structures.
    • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC Decision on 19 September 2007.
    • The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC Decision on 20 November 2008, specifying that only 3.42 square meters of the property should be surrendered.
    • The Supreme Court upheld the CA Decision in its Resolutions dated 29 July 2009 and 7 December 2009, which became final and executory on 3 February 2010.
  3. Implementation of the Writ of Execution

    • On 15 April 2010, the MTC issued a Writ of Execution. Complainant Bautista contacted respondent Sheriff Marking G. Cruz to implement the writ.
    • Complainant suggested erecting a wall to satisfy the writ, as no writ of demolition was issued. Respondent initially agreed but later refused to implement the writ, citing the need for a surveyor and the locked garage door.
    • Complainant alleged that respondent failed to serve the Notice to Vacate on the defendants' counsel and refused to recover the costs of suit incurred during the appeals.
  4. Respondent’s Defense

    • Respondent claimed he fully implemented the writ, as evidenced by the Certificate of Possession and the Officer’s Report dated 19 May 2011.
    • He argued that delays were caused by complainant’s refusal to hire a surveyor and his insistence on demolishing the garage without a court order.
    • Respondent denied receiving bribes and explained that he served the Notice to Vacate on the defendants to avoid forced eviction.
    • He also stated that he could not recover the costs of suit for the CA and SC appeals, as no such award was mentioned in the decisions.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Bribery Allegations

    • Unsupported allegations of bribery cannot be the basis for administrative liability. Proof beyond mere speculation is required.
  2. Implementation of the Writ

    • Sheriffs must strictly comply with the Rules of Court, particularly Rule 39, Section 10(d), which prohibits the destruction of improvements without a special court order.
  3. Costs of Suit

    • Sheriffs are only obligated to enforce costs of suit explicitly awarded by the court. Absent such an award, they cannot be compelled to recover additional expenses.
  4. Service of Notices

    • Notices must be served on the counsel of record, not the party directly, unless specifically ordered by the court. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of procedural rules.
  5. Periodic Reporting

    • Sheriffs are required to submit periodic reports on the status of writ implementation every 30 days until the writ is fully satisfied. Failure to do so constitutes inefficiency and incompetence.

Disposition

Respondent Sheriff Marking G. Cruz was found guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his official duties. He was REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act would be dealt with more severely.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.