Case Digest (G.R. No. 92570)
Facts:
In this administrative complaint filed on July 25, 2012, Normandy R. Bautista served as the complainant against Marking G. Cruz, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 53, Rosales, Pangasinan. The dispute originated from an ejectment case where Bautista, along with co-plaintiffs Rosamund Posadas and Madonna Ramos, filed a complaint against Teresita Vallejos and Luisa Basconcillo. The plaintiffs claimed co-ownership of a parcel of land occupied by the defendants in Rosales, Pangasinan. On March 21, 2007, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) rendered a decision favoring the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to vacate the premises and to refrain from constructing additional structures. This ruling was sustained by the RTC on September 19, 2007, and subsequently affirmed with minor modifications by the Court of Appeals (CA) on November 20, 2008, specifying that the area to be vacated was 3.42 square meters. After the judgment became final on February 3, 2010, the MTC iss
...Case Digest (G.R. No. 92570)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Issues:
- Whether respondent should be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, gross inefficiency, misfeasance of duty, and bias and partiality in the implementation of the Writ of Execution.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)