Case Digest (A.M. No. P-01-1451)
Facts:
Lina M. Paner v. Sheriff IV Edgardo M. Torres and Junior Process Server Adriano A. Vergara, A.M. No. P-01-1451 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 99-563-P), February 28, 2003, the Supreme Court Second Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Lina M. Paner was one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3542 (Anicia Mule v. Spouses Dominador Luna, et al.) filed in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calamba, Laguna; the MTC rendered judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba. The plaintiffs moved in the MTC for a writ of execution pending appeal on the ground of insufficiency of the supersedeas bond; the MTC granted the motion and issued the writ.
Respondent Sheriff IV Edgardo M. Torres returned that writ unsatisfied, stating the defendants refused to vacate. The plaintiffs then moved for, and the MTC issued, a writ of demolition on October 15, 1998. Junior Process Server Adriano A. Vergara served a copy of the writ of demolition only to the Office of the Provincial Sheriff and did not serve copies to the parties.
Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the writ of demolition. Sheriff Torres later filed a Sheriff's Return stating implementation of the writ of demolition had been held in abeyance pending resolution of the defendants' motion for reconsideration; the Sheriff also averred he received a notice of hearing for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and that a TRO effective December 1, 1998 was issued by the RTC. The Sheriff further averred that by February 8, 1999 the demolition had been carried out and possession turned over to the plaintiffs.
On December 1, 1998 Paner filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) an affidavit-complaint alleging obstruction of justice: that the Sheriff deliberately refused to enforce the writ of execution pending appeal, demanded P15,000 for demolition expenses (she was able to give only P3,000), and that she had to hire a truck and laborers to assist. She also alleged the process server deliberately failed to serve them with the order granting the writ of demolition and they only learned of it from defendants' motion for reconsideration.
In their answers, Sheriff Torres explained the deferral of execution by reason of the pending reconsideration and TRO and later compliance; Process Server Vergara candidly stated his practice was to serve the Provincial Sheriff only and not furnish copies to the parties b...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondents commit administrative offenses—dereliction of duty and manifest partiality—by failing to promptly implement the writs and by not serving copies of the writ of demolition on the parties?
- Was the allegation that respondent Sheriff demanded and received money for i...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)