G.R. No. L-17336 - Alipio vs. Rodriguez

Complainant Lina M. Paner was one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3542 (Anicia Mule v. Spouses Dominador Luna, et al.) for ejectment filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calamba, Laguna.
The plaintiffs, who were siblings and co-owners of the subject property, obtained a favorable judgment from the MTC.
Defendants appealed the decision with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba, Laguna.

In view of the defendants’ insufficient supersedeas bond, complainant and the co-plaintiffs filed a motion for a writ of execution pending appeal with the MTC.
The MTC granted the motion and issued the corresponding writ of execution pending appeal.
Respondent Sheriff IV Edgardo M. Torres returned the writ unsatisfied, contending that the defendants refused to vacate the subject premises.

Subsequently, complainant and her siblings filed a motion for a writ of demolition.
On October 15, 1998, the MTC granted the motion and issued the writ of demolition.
Respondent Junior Process Server Adriano A. Vergara served a copy of the writ to the Office of the Provincial Sheriff but did not serve any copy to the parties involved.

Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the MTC’s Order granting the writ of demolition.
Respondent Sheriff issued a Sheriff’s Return stating that the implementation of the writ was held in abeyance pending the resolution of the defendants’ motion for reconsideration.
Complainant then filed an affidavit-complaint for Obstruction of Justice with the Office of the Court Administrator on December 1, 1998, alleging the following:

The Sheriff deliberately refused to enforce the writ of execution pending appeal.
The Sheriff demanded P15,000.00 for the implementation expenses of the writ of demolition, while complainant could only provide P3,000.00.
In order to assist the Sheriff, complainant personally hired a heavy truck and engaged the services of twenty laborers.
Respondent Process Server's failure to serve the copy of the writ of demolition to the parties, which resulted in the parties being only indirectly informed via the defendants’ motion for reconsideration.

Claimed that the writ of execution pending appeal was returned unsatisfied because the defendants refused to vacate the premises.
Asserted that he could not implement the writ of demolition due to the pending motion for reconsideration.
Mentioned involvement in RTC Civil Case No. 2688-98-C, in which a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued effective December 1, 1998, thereby rendering the complaint moot since by February 8, 1999, the writ had been fully satisfied, the house demolished, and possession turned over to the complainants.

Admitted that he did not serve copies of the Order granting the writ of demolition to the parties, believing that service to the Provincial Sheriff was sufficient.
Argued that his practice was based on the honest belief that further service was unnecessary since the proper officer had already been furnished with the order.

The complainant’s affidavit-complaint, as interpreted by the Office of the Court Administrator, indicated that the true grievance was the respondents’ dereliction of duty and manifest partiality relative to Civil Case No. 3542.
Key contentions included:

The Sheriff's inaction and delay in executing the writ despite his ministerial duty.
The utilization of the pending motion for reconsideration as an excuse for deferring execution, thereby unduly favoring the defendants.
The inefficiency of the process server in adhering to established rules for proper service.

Whether respondent Sheriff IV Edgardo M. Torres failed in his ministerial duty by not executing the writ of demolition within the prescribed period, despite the absence of any valid legal excuse such as the pending motion for reconsideration.
Whether the rationale provided by the Sheriff—that the writ of demolition had effectively become moot due to subsequent developments (i.e., the TRO and eventual satisfaction of the writ)—justifies his inaction.
Whether respondent Junior Process Server Adriano A. Vergara’s practice of serving the writ of demolition to only the office of the Provincial Sheriff, without furnishing copies to the parties, constitutes incompetence and inefficiency that amounts to dereliction of duty.
Whether the allegation of extortion—specifically the claim that the Sheriff demanded P15,000.00 for expenses—was substantiated by evidence, and if not, whether this absence of evidence impacts the overall verdict regarding dereliction of duty.