Case Digest (A.M. No. P-05-1959)
Facts:
Vicente De la Cruz, Johnny Sanoy, Artemia Leguarda, Francisco Gazo, German Butron, Rosa Jumawan, Virgie Estrada, Climaco Patoc, and Ruth Calayo v. Expedito B. Bato, SPO1 Jerry Camarador, PO3 Samuel Ansok, PO3 Luis Lakandula, SPO3 Aurea, John Does, MTCC, Branch 1, Dumaguete City, Dumaguete Police Station, Dumaguete City, A.M. No. P-05-1959 (formerly OCA IPI No. 04-1834-P), February 15, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Chico-Nazario, J., writing for the Court. The matter is an administrative complaint arising from the execution of an ejectment judgment and the sheriff’s implementation of the resulting writ.On August 7, 2003 the group of tenants (the complainants) filed a Mass Affidavit/Complaint initially with the Department of Justice, City Prosecution Office, Dumaguete City, later referred to the Court, accusing Expedito B. Bato (the respondent sheriff) of abuse of authority and grave coercion in connection with Civil Case No. 2000-169 (an unlawful detainer action) involving Lot 710 in Colon Extension, Dumaguete City. Complainants stated they were lessees/possessors under contracts from the family of Joaquina Llorente and had constructed houses thereon; ownership, however, was contested in a separate case pending before the Regional Trial Court (Civil Case No. 10829, Emilia Carino, et al. v. Eufemio Diaz, et al.).
The MTCC (Municipal Trial Court in Cities), Branch 1, Dumaguete City, on March 30, 2001 rendered judgment in favor of the family of Eufemio Diaz in the unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 2000-169). On May 6, 2003 the Diaz family moved for issuance of a writ of execution and a writ of demolition; the MTCC granted the writ of execution but denied the writ of demolition. A writ of execution was issued on July 2, 2003 addressed to the City Sheriff of Dumaguete City.
Respondent sheriff attempted to implement the writ on July 3 and July 7, 2003; complainants presented a certification of the pendency of the RTC action and their lease contracts, which they say the sheriff ignored. On July 16, 2003 respondent returned with two carpenters and four armed police officers and padlocked the complainants’ houses and posted placards; he later submitted a return of service dated July 18, 2003 stating the writ had been fully satisfied. The complainants alleged that the padlocking, carried out with police assistance, constituted abuse of authority and grave coercion and caused them humiliation and other injuries.
The administrative complaint was investigated by the Office of the Court Administ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the administrative complaint supported by substantial evidence sufficient to sustain charges against the respondent sheriff?
- Did the respondent sheriff’s execution of the writ, including padlocking the houses with police assistance, constitute abuse of authority ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)