A.M. No. MTJ-00-1283 - Alvarez vs. Diaz

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1283)

Factual Background: The Forcible Entry Case and Demolition

The spouses Domingo and Celia Garcia filed a complaint for forcible entry on October 27, 1995 against the tenants of Alvarez before the MeTC. The case was raffled to Branch 37 presided over by Judge Diaz. On June 17, 1996, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Admit Amended Complaint that dropped six defendants from the original complaint and added Alvarez as one of the defendants.

On November 11, 1997, Judge Diaz rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs. The decision ordered the defendants to vacate the premises, remove improvements and structures, and pay the plaintiffs P20,000 per month as reasonable compensation for use and occupancy from August 1995 until final vacatur. Alvarez received the decision on January 7, 1998. On January 14, 1998, Alvarez filed, through counsel, a Notice of Appeal and paid the appellate docket fees on January 15, 1998.

The MeTC’s Orders, Execution, and Alleged Irregularities

On January 28, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Execution on the theory that the MeTC decision had become final due to defendants’ alleged failure to pay the appellate docket fees within the appeal period, as required by Section 5, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. On February 3, 1998, Judge Diaz dismissed Alvarez’s Notice of Appeal for non-payment of docket fees within the appeal period and simultaneously granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Execution due to lack of a supersedeas bond under Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The writ of execution was issued on the same date.

On February 19, 1998, Deputy Sheriff Luna personally served copies of the Notice to Vacate on the defendants, except Alvarez. Luna’s explanation was that Alvarez neither lived nor held an office in the premises, so the deputy sheriff left the notice with a tenant, Penny Montelo. The notice required vacatur within five days. On February 26, 1998, Luna submitted a Sheriff’s Report stating that the defendants refused to vacate. On February 27, 1998, the plaintiffs filed an ex parte Motion for Demolition. On March 2, 1998, Judge Diaz granted the motion and issued a Writ of Demolition. On March 11, 1998, the demolition was carried out and possession was turned over to the plaintiffs.

Alvarez asserted that no proper notice and hearing occurred before the demolition and before the execution-related measures proceeded against him after his appeal. He also alleged forged signatures in the orders and claimed that the docket fee official receipts were detached from the case records. The MeTC received photocopies of Alvarez’s receipts on February 23, 1998.

Procedural Development: Reconsideration on the Appeal

On March 20, 1998, nine days after demolition, Judge Diaz issued an order motu proprio reconsidering his February 3, 1998 dismissal of Alvarez’s Notice of Appeal. The Court treated this timing as significant because the official receipts’ photocopies had been received on February 23, 1998, yet demolition proceeded upon the assumption of finality.

Alvarez claimed that these actions caused him serious prejudice. He consequently filed the administrative complaint dated April 15, 1998 against Judge Diaz, the clerk of court, and the deputy sheriff.

Allegations in the Administrative Complaint

Alvarez charged Judge Diaz with grave abuse of authority and gross misconduct related to three specific orders: first, dismissal of Alvarez’s Notice of Appeal despite his payment of appellate docket fees and the absence of a motion to dismiss; second, grant of the plaintiffs’ Motion for Execution despite a perfected Notice of Appeal and despite the plaintiffs’ alleged failure to furnish him a copy of the Notice; and third, grant of an ex parte Motion for Demolition allegedly without notice and hearing.

He further alleged that forgery occurred by falsification of receipt signatures or initials in court documents. He also alleged that the clerk of court and deputy sheriff solicited money and gifts for the dismissal of the forcible entry complaint and that they took his personal properties during demolition. Finally, he accused Deputy Sheriff Luna of committing grave misconduct by demolishing the structures within “three hours” under allegedly unlawful circumstances.

Responses of the Respondents

Judge Diaz denied grave abuse of authority. He argued that the lack of a hearing on the Motion for Demolition was moot and academic because the decision itself included demolition of structures. He also denied promised accommodation arrangements and maintained that there was no promise made to any higher judge. As to the execution and appeal, he asserted that dismissal was warranted due to failure to pay supersedeas and due to Alvarez’s alleged failure to have posted the supersedeas bond to stay execution.

Atty. Edralin and Deputy Sheriff Luna jointly denied solicitation and extortion. They contended that Alvarez was not even a party when the alleged solicitation occurred in December 1995, so there was no reason to demand money from him at that time. They also asserted that the Motion for Execution was set for hearing and that a copy was furnished to Alvarez’s counsel on February 3, 1998, shown by the receipt stamp in the office of counsel. They likewise claimed that there was no need to set the Motion for Demolition for hearing because defendants failed to post the required supersedeas bond. They further denied that the clerk of court was present during demolition and challenged Alvarez’s credibility on the supposed “pressure” dynamics.

Investigation and Findings of the Consultant

The Court initially docketed the matter as an administrative case, assigning retired Justice Narciso T. Atienza as consultant. The consultant found Judge Diaz guilty of gross ignorance of basic procedural laws and grave misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the service for two acts: issuing a writ of demolition without notice and hearing, and taking cognizance of plaintiffs’ fatally defective motions for execution and demolition. As to the clerk of court and the deputy sheriff, the consultant found no substantial evidence for grave misconduct and solicitation of gifts. Still, it found the clerk of court liable for ignorance of the law for accepting the fatally defective motions.

The consultant recommended a fine of P20,000 for Judge Diaz, a fine of P5,000 for the clerk of court, and dismissal as to the deputy sheriff for insufficiency of evidence.

Issues Framed by the Court

The Court addressed whether Judge Diaz committed grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of procedural laws in (a) dismissing the Notice of Appeal, (b) granting execution despite claimed appeal and supersedeas deficiencies, and (c) granting an ex parte demolition. It also evaluated whether substantial evidence established grave misconduct and solicitation of gifts against the clerk of court and deputy sheriff. Lastly, it assessed the sufficiency of proof for allegations of forgery and for confiscation or taking of Alvarez’s personal properties during demolition.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Dismissal of Notice of Appeal and Subsequent Execution

On the alleged abuse in the initial dismissal of the Notice of Appeal, the Court held that Judge Diaz did not abuse authority at the time of dismissal. It reasoned that Alvarez failed to submit the official receipts evidencing payment within the appeal period. Alvarez received the decision on January 7, 1998, so the last day to file appellate docket fees was January 22, 1998. Alvarez paid on January 15, 1998, but failed to submit the original official receipts; only photocopies were submitted on February 23, 1998. The Court considered the MeTC’s verification on February 3, 1998 as showing non-submission within the appeal period and therefore justified dismissal.

The Court rejected Alvarez’s theory that the dismissal required a motion. It held that, prior to transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, the trial court may motu proprio dismiss an appeal taken out of time under Section 13, Rule 41.

However, the Court found fault not in the initial dismissal, but in the grant of execution that followed. Even accepting the premise that there was no perfected Notice of Appeal and no supersedeas bond, the Court held that the plaintiffs’ Motion for Execution was fatally defective because it violated procedural requirements for notice of hearing.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Fatally Defective Motion for Execution

The Court applied Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, stressing that a notice of hearing must be addressed to all parties concerned. It treated any motion with a hearing notice addressed only to the clerk of court as a “mere scrap of paper” not entitled to judicial cognizance. The notice attached to the Motion for Execution was addressed only to the clerk of court and not to the parties.

The Court considered the respondents’ attempt to justify service upon Alvarez’s counsel by mere claim of personal delivery insufficient, because no formal proof of service was presented as required under Section 13, Rule 15. Additionally, under Section 6, Rule 15, no written motion set for hearing should be acted upon without proof of service. On these grounds, the Court concluded that Judge Diaz should not have acted on the defective Motion for Execution.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Demolition Without Notice and Hearing

The Court likewise found Judge Diaz grossly ignorant of procedural law in granting the Motion for Demolition ex parte. It relied on Section 10(d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which requires that where the property subject of execution contains improvements constructed by the judgment obligor, the officer may not destroy, demolish, or remove the improvements except upon a special court order issued upon the motion of the judgment obligee after due hearing and after the former has failed to remove the improvements within a reasonable time.

The Court held that this rule was

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1283)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Col. Octavio Alvarez filed an administrative complaint against Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Clerk of Court Atty. Victory Edralin, and Deputy Sheriff Efren P. Luna, all of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City (MeTC), Branch 37, for grave abuse of authority, gross misconduct, and solicitation of gifts.
The complaint related to Civil Case No. 37-13857 for forcible entry, filed by the spouses Domingo and Celia Garcia, which resulted in the demolition of Alvarez’s office and tenants’ houses and other structures at No. 21 Congressional Avenue, San Beda Village, Bahay Toro, Quezon City.
The case was initially docketed as OCA IPI No. 98-547-MTJ and later re-docketed as a regular administrative matter as A.M. No. MTJ-00-1283.
The Court assigned Retired Justice Narciso T. Atienza as consultant to investigate the charges.
After Atienza’s report, the Court conducted a meticulous review of the records and resolved the administrative liability of each respondent separately.

Key Factual Allegations

Alvarez was a defendant in the forcible entry case that led to the demolition of the subject premises.
The Garcia spouses filed the original forcible entry complaint on October 27, 1995 against tenants, and the case was raffled to Branch 37 presided by Judge Diaz.
On June 17, 1996, through counsel, the plaintiffs filed a motion to admit an amended complaint that dropped six defendants and added Alvarez as a defendant.
On November 11, 1997, Judge Diaz rendered a decision ordering the defendants, including Alvarez, to vacate, remove improvements and structures, and pay P20,000 per month as compensation for use and occupancy.
Alvarez received the decision on January 7, 1998, filed a Notice of Appeal on January 14, 1998, and paid appellate docket fees on January 15, 1998, but he failed to submit the original official receipts within the period.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Execution on January 28, 1998, asserting that the MeTC decision had become final due to failure to pay docket fees within the appeal period as required by Section 5, Rule 40.
In an order dated February 3, 1998, Judge Diaz dismissed Alvarez’s Notice of Appeal for non-payment of docket fees within the appeal period, and simultaneously granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Execution for failure to post a supersedeas bond required under Section 19, Rule 70.
Deputy Sheriff Luna served copies of Notice to Vacate and the writ of execution, but the copy for Alvarez allegedly was left with a tenant because the sheriff claimed Alvarez neither lived nor held an office in the premises.
Deputy Sheriff Luna reported that the defendants refused to vacate, prompting plaintiffs to file an ex parte Motion for Demolition on February 27, 1998, followed by Judge Diaz’s issuance of a Writ of Demolition on March 2, 1998.
The demolition occurred on March 11, 1998, and Alvarez alleged that it was completed rapidly and with deception, including fencing and refusal to allow tenants to retrieve personal property.
Alvarez further alleged that Judge Diaz later reconsidered the dismissal of his Notice of Appeal on March 20, 1998, after official receipts were received by the MeTC.
Alvarez claimed that the alleged irregularities were tied to forged signatures on court orders and to solicitation of money and gifts by the clerk of court and deputy sheriff.
Alvarez accused respondents of soliciting P100,000 for dismissal and of receiving gifts including a Guchi wrist watch, golden necklace and pendants, a Dunhill men’s jacket, P5,000, a golden pendant, and two bottles of Fundador liquor.
Alvarez also alleged that the demolition was done without proper notice and hearing for the demolition order and with no notice to him or counsel.
Alvarez criticized the execution process as illegal because of the supposed perfection of his appeal and because he insisted that proper notice and set hearings were not observed.
The respondents denied the solicitation and gift charges and maintained that the court acted correctly based on procedural posture and bond requirements.

Issues Presented

The Court addressed whether Judge Diaz committed grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of basic procedural laws in (a) dismissing the Notice of Appeal, (b) granting execution, and (c) issuing the demolition order without notice and hearing.
The Court considered whether Clerk of Court Edralin and Deputy Sheriff Luna were liable for grave misconduct and solicitation of gifts based on Alvarez’s allegations.
The Court evaluated whether the evidence supporting alleged forgery, confiscation of property, and illegal solicitation reached the administrative-law standard of substantial evidence.
The Court considered whether Deputy Sheriff Luna could be held liable for alleged misconduct in implementing the writ of demolition.
The Court considered whether Alvarez’s own conduct in attempting to stop the demolition through personal influence was ethically improper.

Governing Rules and Doctrines

The case applied the Rules of Court on dismissal of appeals, notice of hearing, proof of service, and execution/removal of improvements.
The Court relied on Section 13, Rule 41, allowing the trial court to motu proprio dismiss an appeal taken out of time prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal.
The Court applied Section 5, Rule 15, requiring that notice of hearing be addressed to all parties concerned and be scheduled within ten days from filing of the motion.
The Court invoked the principle that a motion with a notice of hearing not addressed to all parties, in violation of Section 5, Rule 15, is a mere scrap of paper and must not be accepted for filing or acted upon.
The Court applied Section 6, Rule 15, mandating that no written motion set for hearing be acted upon without proof of service.
The Court applied the proof-of-service requirement under Section 13, Rule 15, requiring at least an official return, a written admission, or an affidavit with a full statement of service.
The Court applied Section 10(d), Rule 39, requiring a special order for removal or demolition of improvements after due hearing on the motion of the judgment obligee and after the obligor failed to remove withi