Title
Bonilla vs. Afable
Case
A.M. No. 2397-MJ, P-2396
Decision Date
Jul 30, 1982
Engineer Ernesto D. Bonilla accused Judge Leonardo Afable of negligently issuing a demolition order exceeding the land scope in Civil Case No. 205, and Deputy Sheriff Atilano Nanquil of arbitrarily executing it. Judge Afable admitted the error, attributing it to a misleading report, and was admonished. Nanquil was exonerated due to lack of evidence. The court emphasized judicial diligence and accountability in official duties.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. 2397-MJ, P-2396)

Facts:

Case Background: In 1973, Engineer Ernesto D. Bonilla filed a complaint against Judge Leonardo Afable of the Municipal Circuit Court of San Marcelino-Castillejos, Zambales, for issuing a demolition order on September 12, 1979. The order directed the removal of houses on a 60,000 sq. m. land, which was significantly larger than the 37,968 sq. m. parcel of land involved in Civil Case No. 205, "Eduardo Racella, et al. vs. Alejandro Pechay, et al.," a forcible entry case.
Judgment in Civil Case No. 205: The court had ordered the defendants to vacate the land and pay damages to the plaintiffs.
Complaint Against Deputy Sheriff: Bonilla also charged Deputy Sheriff Atilano Nanquil with arbitrarily executing the demolition order without giving the occupants a reasonable opportunity to remove their belongings.
Respondent Judge’s Admission: Judge Afable admitted the error in the demolition order, attributing it to a misleading report (Notice of Levy) submitted by Deputy Sheriff Nanquil. He claimed to have corrected the error upon realizing it.
Sheriff’s Defense: Deputy Sheriff Nanquil denied the charges, stating that the occupants were treated with consideration during the execution of the order.
Investigation: The charges were referred to Executive Judge Domingo D. Panis for investigation. Complainant Bonilla failed to appear at the hearings, leading to a recommendation for dismissal due to lack of prosecution.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Judicial Responsibility: Judges must exercise due care and diligence in issuing orders, ensuring they are consistent with the judgment to be executed. Relying on incorrect reports, even unintentionally, constitutes negligence.
  2. Sheriff’s Conduct: In executing court orders, sheriffs are expected to act with consideration for the affected parties. However, without sufficient evidence of misconduct, charges cannot be upheld.
  3. Accountability in Official Duties: Public officers, including judges, are accountable for their actions, even if errors are unintentional.


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.