Title
Kaw vs. Anunciacion, Jr.
Case
A.M. No. MTJ-93-811
Decision Date
Mar 1, 1995
Alicia Kaw accused Judge Anunciacion and Sheriff Aribuabo of misconduct in an ejectment case, alleging improper rental fixation, lack of notice for execution, and unauthorized sheriff actions. The Court found procedural errors, imposed fines, and issued warnings.

Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-93-811)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Alicia T. Kaw, acting by letter‐complaint dated March 20, 1993, charged Respondents Judge Casiano P. Anunciacion, Jr. of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 2 in Manila and Sheriff Samuel A. Aribuabo, Sheriff III under the Office of the Clerk of Court, with grave misconduct, incompetence, and partiality. The complaint arose from an ejectment action filed by Italy Marketing Corporation (IMC) against complainant’s husband, George L. Kaw, based on a long-standing lease agreement for a unit at 648–650 Padre Rada Street, Tondo, Manila, where a business known as “PocketSaver’s Mart and Bakeshop” was operated. IMC, after acquiring the building, sent Kaw several notices to vacate; on his refusal, IMC initiated an ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 132227-CV).

Kaw was served with summons on May 9, 1990, with ten (10) days to file his answer. However, Kaw filed a motion for extension of time twice—once for 15 days and later for 10 days—arguing that he had not yet secured legal counsel. The respondent judge, however, did not act on these motions, holding that such motions were prohibited under the Rules on Summary Procedure. On June 1, 1990, the judge rendered a decision ordering Kaw to vacate the premises and to pay IMC P1,500.00 monthly (starting April 1989 until actual vacation), plus attorney’s fees and court costs. This decision was upheld by the RTC and the Court of Appeals.

Complainant further alleged that on June 7, 1990, she and her family received the decision, and on the very next day they were served with a writ of execution—a writ that was issued ex parte without notice to Kaw—leading to their immediate eviction. Their personal property, notably tools and equipment used in their bakery, were levied upon and auctioned. Additionally, Kaw claimed that the rent was fixed at P1,500.00 in a manner that would bring the amount within the Rule on Summary Procedure (thereby avoiding higher docket fees) and questioned the authority of Sheriff Aribuabo, who was not the regular deputy sheriff on duty.

Issues:

  • Whether the respondent judge abused his discretion by:
  • Referring to the fixed monthly rental rate of P1,500.00 without the complainant’s prior knowledge of the actual market rental value and possibly to evade proper docket fee payment;
  • Failing to act on Kaw’s motions for an extension to file his answer, which under the Rules on Summary Procedure are considered prohibited pleadings; and
  • Issuing a writ of execution ex parte, without notifying the adverse party, thereby denying due process.
  • Whether respondent Sheriff Aribuabo improperly enforced the writ by:
  • Failing to give the mandatory three (3) to five (5) days notice to vacate the premises; and
  • Levying on exempt property (tools and implements used in the bakery business), contrary to the provisions of the Rules of Court.
  • Whether the designation of a “special deputy sheriff” was proper given that the regular deputy sheriff had not been shown to be unavailable.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.