Title
Supreme Court
Morta Sr. vs. Sanez
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1593
Decision Date
Oct 16, 2000
Judge and sheriff sanctioned for issuing and executing demolition orders without proper notice, hearing, or compliance with family home exemption laws.

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-00-1593)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • An administrative complaint was filed by Jaime Morta, Sr. and Donald Morga against two court officers:
1.1. Judge Jose S. SaAez of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Ligao, Albay. 1.2. Sheriff IV Angel Conejero of the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Ligao, Albay.
  • The complaint stemmed from proceedings in Civil Case No. 1920, “Baraclan vs. Morta, Sr. et al.,” involving an action for unlawful detainer.
  • The complaint was received by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on March 27, 1998.
  • Chronology and Procedural History
    • In a separate proceeding, the complainants were defendants in Civil Case No. 962 for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court.
1.1. On September 9, 1996, Judge Designate Aurora Binamira-Parcia rendered judgment ordering the defendants to vacate Lot Nos. 991 and 997 in San Rafael, Guinobatan, Albay and to pay damages and costs. 1.2. A motion to reconsider was filed and denied; the decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal by Judge Salvador A. Silerio at the RTC, Ligao, on July 16, 1997.
  • An appeal of the adverse decision to the Court of Appeals was initiated by the complainants on August 11, 1997.
  • Concurrently, on August 7, 1997, a motion for execution pending appeal was filed by the plaintiff, with a hearing set on August 15, 1997.
3.1. Judge Silerio granted the motion, ordering the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution. 3.2. Although defendants’ counsel filed an opposition citing delayed receipt of the motion, the writ of execution and its related processes were duly issued.
  • Issuance of the Writ of Demolition and Related Proceedings
    • On September 6, 1997, Deputy Sheriff Angel Conejero served the writ of execution through Jaime Morta, Sr., giving a 20-day grace period for vacating the premises.
1.1. The writ demanded payment of the judgment amount.
  • Despite having residential houses on Lots 991 and 997, owned respectively by Morta, Sr. and his son, the complainants refused to vacate the premises.
  • On November 18, 1997, a motion for issuance of a writ of demolition was filed by the plaintiff, setting the hearing for December 19, 1997.
  • Defendants opposed the motion on the grounds that:
4.1. The houses were family homes and thus exempt from execution or demolition under Article 153 of the Family Code. 4.2. The writ of demolition was issued without adequate notice and hearing.
  • On January 22, 1998, Judge Jose S. SaAez granted the motion for a writ of demolition.
5.1. A writ of demolition was subsequently issued. 5.2. A motion for reconsideration filed by the defendants on February 23, 1998, was denied.
  • Allegations Presented Against the Respondents
    • Against Respondent Judge Jose S. SaAez:
1.1. The issuance of the writ of execution and of demolition violated Sections 4 and 6 of Rule 15, which mandate prior notice and hearing. 1.2. The writ of demolition was executed without a special order from the court, in violation of Section 10 (d), Rule 39. 1.3. The demolition affected family homes, which are typically exempt from execution or demolition under Article 155 of the Family Code.
  • Against Respondent Sheriff IV Angel Conejero:
2.1. He is accused of implementing the demolition knowing that the homes were exempt from execution. 2.2. He failed to make an inventory of the demolished materials and to issue official receipts to the complainants. 2.3. He neglected to submit the costs or rough estimates of the demolition for court approval. 2.4. He hastily implemented the demolition without securing a special court order or properly serving the writ of demolition. 2.5. He did not make a proper return of the demolition process.
  • Comments and Recommendations by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
    • The OCA conducted an investigation and required the respondents to comment on the allegations.
1.1. Judge SaAez denied the charges but admitted that the writ of demolition was an incident to a previously issued writ of execution, and acknowledged the absence of a special order. 1.2. Sheriff Conejero similarly denied the charges but admitted to the factual inaccuracies regarding the issuance process, including his failure to inventory and submit cost estimates.
  • The OCA recommended:
2.1. Exoneration of the respondent judge for all charges except for the violation of Section 10 (d) of Rule 39, for which he was recommended a fine of ₱5,000.00. 2.2. Suspension of the respondent sheriff for one month without pay for his failure to comply with the rules governing execution and demolition.

Issues:

  • Whether the issuance of the writ of demolition by Judge SaAez complied with the mandatory requirements of prior notice and hearing as stipulated by Sections 4 and 6 of Rule 15.
1.1. Did the judge fix a reasonable time for the complainants to remove their family homes as required by law? 1.2. Was there a proper hearing before the issuance of the writ of demolition?
  • Whether the execution of the writ of demolition violated the provisions of Section 10 (d), Rule 39 concerning the need for a special order when improvements (such as residential houses) are present on the property.
2.1. Does the failure to issue a special court order make the demolition procedurally erroneous?
  • Whether the destruction of family homes falls under the exemption provided by Article 155 of the Family Code, and if such exemption was duly observed.
3.1. Were the actions of the judge and sheriff in disregarding the exemptions warranted and legally justified?
  • Whether the respondent sheriff’s failure to:
4.1. Create an inventory of the demolished materials, 4.2. Issue official receipts, and 4.3. Submit the rough estimates and cost details for approval by the court, constitutes grave abuse of authority, incompetence, and misconduct in the execution of the writ.
  • Whether the punitive measures recommended by the OCA (fine against the judge and suspension against the sheriff) are appropriate given the gravity and nature of the procedural irregularities committed.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms