Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-97-1116)
Facts:
The case involves a complaint filed by Alejandro Y. Punio against Judge Francisco J. Go and Sheriff Ruel T. Magcalas, both of whom were connected to the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Pila, Laguna. The complaint arose from Judge Go’s refusal to issue a Writ of Demolition and Sheriff Magcalas’s failure to enforce a Writ of Execution in relation to an ejectment suit designated as Civil Case No. 869, titled "Bernardina Fernandez Vda. de Punio vs. Norberto Kolimlim and all persons claiming under him." Alejandro Punio, the complainant, is the son and attorney-in-fact of the plaintiff in this case.
The events that led to the complaint originated from a judgment made on November 15, 1994, by Judge Augusto O. Sumilang, ordering the defendant to vacate a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-127686, pay a monthly rental of ₱100, and settle attorney's fees of ₱5,000. Following the defendant's notice of appeal filed on December 1, 1994, and the plainti
Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-97-1116)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Complainant: Alejandro Y. Punio, who is the son and attorney-in-fact of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 869).
- Respondents:
- Judge Francisco J. Go, Acting Judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Pila, Laguna.
- Sheriff Ruel T. Magcalas, sheriff of the MTC of Pila, Laguna.
- Nature of the Complaint: An administrative complaint was filed alleging that Judge Go failed to issue a Writ of Demolition and that Sheriff Magcalas failed to enforce the Writ of Execution, both arising from Civil Case No. 869.
- Proceedings in Civil Case No. 869
- Decision and Judgment
- On November 15, 1994, Judge Augusto O. Sumilang of the MTC rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering:
- The defendant and all other occupants to vacate the subject property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-127686.
- Payment of reasonable compensation at the rate of P100.00 per month.
- Payment of attorney’s fees (P5,000.00) and costs of suit.
- Post-Judgment Developments
- The defendant filed a notice of appeal on December 1, 1994.
- On December 14, 1994, the plaintiff moved for the execution of the decision.
- Respondent Judge Go issued an order on December 15, 1994, instructing the Clerk of Court to elevate the case records to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sta. Cruz, Laguna.
- Subsequently, the records were returned to the MTC upon the plaintiff’s motion.
- Further Developments and Motions
- Execution and Enforcement
- The plaintiff filed a Manifestation reiterating her motion for issuance of a Writ of Execution, which was eventually granted on May 30, 1995.
- A Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution was filed by the defendant, to which the plaintiff opposed.
- Enforcement Issues
- The Sheriff’s Report dated July 14, 1995, indicated that the Writ of Execution was not enforced, due to the defendants’ refusal to vacate the premises.
- The plaintiff then filed a Motion to Cite Defendants in Contempt; however, in an order dated November 8, 1995, the Motion was denied by Judge Go.
- Motion for Demolition
- On November 27, 1995, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Demolition.
- The defendant opposed this motion.
- On March 1, 1996, Judge Go issued an Order deferring the action on the plaintiff’s Motion for Demolition due to the pendency of Civil Case No. SC-2953 before the RTC of Sta. Cruz, Laguna (an action for annulment of the plaintiff’s title).
- Investigation and Findings
- Allegation by Complainant:
- It is maintained that Judge Go’s refusal to issue an Order of Demolition rendered the earlier ejectment judgment (dated November 15, 1994) nugatory.
- Respondent Judge’s Defense:
- Judge Go claimed he acted within his duty and denied any wrongdoing in deferring the issuance of the order for demolition.
- Report by Investigating Judge Hilario F. Corcuera:
- Found that deferring the issuance of the Order of Demolition due to the pendency of Civil Case No. SC-2953 was without merit.
- Highlighted that the issuance of a writ of execution in an ejectment case is a ministerial act even if doubts exist regarding the validity of the decision.
- Recommendations:
- The administrative complaint against Judge Go was recommended to be dismissed, although he was admonished and warned that a repetition of the act without justification would lead to harsher sanctions.
Issues:
- Whether the trial court’s ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution for a final and executory judgment was compromised by the deferral of the issuance of a Writ of Demolition due to the pendency of another related case (Civil Case No. SC-2953).
- Whether the deferral of the issuance of the Order of Demolition, and hence the failure to enforce the ejectment judgment of November 15, 1994, effectively rendered that judgment nugatory.
- Whether the error in judgment committed by Judge Go in deferring the issuance of the demolition order constitutes grounds for administrative sanctions, particularly given the absence of malice, fraud, dishonesty, corruption, or bad faith.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)