Title
De la Cruz vs. Bato
Case
A.M. No. P-05-1959
Decision Date
Feb 15, 2005
Lessees of disputed Lot 710 accused Sheriff Expedito B. Bato of abuse of authority and grave coercion for padlocking their homes during a writ of execution. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, ruling the sheriff acted within his ministerial duty to enforce a final judgment.
abuse of authority
grave coercion
sheriff

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-05-1959)

Factual Background

The complainants alleged that they were the lessees/possessors of Lot 710, covered by TCT No. 464, located at Colon Extension, Dumaguete City, and that they held contracts obtained from the family of Joaquina Llorente. They stated that their contracts were for an indefinite period and that they were assured they could stay as long as they wished. They also acknowledged that the ownership of Lot 710 was under legal dispute between the family of Eufemio Diaz and the heirs of Joaquina Llorente, in Civil Case No. 10829 pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, Branch XLIII, for Declaration of Void and Fictitious Documents, Quieting of Title, Cancellation of Certificates of Titles and Damages.

Meanwhile, during the pendency of that title dispute, the family of Eufemio Diaz initiated an unlawful detainer case against the complainants, docketed as Civil Case No. 2000-169, in the MTCC of Dumaguete City. On 30 March 2001, the MTCC rendered a decision ordering the defendants (the complainants here) to vacate the premises and supporting related monetary and demolition reliefs. The dispositive portion ordered, among others, that defendants and their families vacate the land and house involved; pay rental at P200.00 a month from receipt of the letter of demand until final vacation; demolish or remove their houses (with an exception for the house of defendants Vicente and Minda de la Cruz being owned by plaintiffs); pay P3,000.00 as attorneys’ fees; and pay the costs of the suit.

Issuance and Implementation of the Writ of Execution

On 06 May 2003, the family of Eufemio Diaz filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution and a motion for writ of demolition to enforce the MTCC judgment. The court granted execution but denied demolition. On 02 July 2003, Branch Clerk of Court Jesus L. Kadusale, Jr. issued an order directing the City Sheriff of Dumaguete City to implement the writ. Respondent sheriff then went to Lot 710 on 03 July 2003 and 07 July 2003. According to the complainants, during these visits they presented a certification showing the pendency of Civil Case No. 10829 and their lease contracts with the heirs of Joaquina Llorente, but the sheriff allegedly ignored the documents and threatened to padlock their homes.

On 16 July 2003, respondent returned with two hired carpenters and four armed policemen and padlocked the complainants’ houses. On the same day, a conference was conducted at about ten o’clock in the morning with complainants and respondent sheriff. Complainants stated they explained that respondent sheriff lacked authority to padlock because they had lease contracts. They further alleged that respondent sheriff declared openly that he would padlock despite anyone’s objections, and that complainants’ lawyer discussed the situation with him. Complainants also asserted that they spoke with Clerk of Court Kadusale, who allegedly agreed to hold execution, subject to complainants’ lawyer filing a motion for reconsideration that afternoon. Despite these claimed assurances, respondent sheriff proceeded at about twelve noon to padlock the dwellings and to place placards stating “Private Property, No Trespassing.”

Complaint Allegations and Respondent’s Position

On 18 July 2003, respondent sheriff submitted his return of service stating that the writ of execution had been fully satisfied. Thereafter, complainants filed the Mass Affidavit/Complaint alleging that respondent’s acts showed abuse of authority and grave coercion relative to the enforcement of the judgment. Complainants maintained that the sheriff, with hired carpenters and armed policemen, padlocked the doors of their houses without their permission. They alleged practical interference with their daily lives and immediate access to their property, including the prevention of Rosa Jumawan from reaching her granddaughter who was sleeping inside the house. They also claimed suffering of sleepless nights, public humiliation, wounded feelings, and besmirched reputation.

Respondent sheriff, in his comment, denied any wrongdoing and asserted that the charges had no legal or factual basis and were filed to harass him.

Administrative Proceedings and the Principal Issue

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted a report on 27 October 2004 recommending dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. The Court adopted the recommendation. The central issue was whether respondent’s acts during execution constituted abuse of authority and grave coercion.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court noted that the writ of execution was addressed to the city sheriff or lawful deputies of Dumaguete City, and that it was issued on 02 July 2003 by the MTCC in implementation of its 30 March 2001 decision, which had become final and executory. The writ directed the sheriff to enforce reliefs including: ordering complainants to vacate; paying rental of P200.00 a month for each house from receipt of the letter of demand until they finally vacated; demolishing the houses; paying P3,000.00 as attorneys’ fees; and paying the costs of suit.

The Court then anchored its analysis on Section 10(c) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court regarding Delivery or restitution of real property. It held that under that provision, the officer must demand peaceable vacating within three working days, and if noncompliance follows, the officer must oust the persons with appropriate peace officers and means reasonably necessary to retake possession, thereby placing the judgment obligee in possession.

The Court emphasized the settled doctrine that a sheriff’s duty in execution is purely ministerial. The sheriff has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. Once a writ is placed in the sheriff’s hands, the sheriff must proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to implement the court’s mandate in accordance with the writ’s terms.

Applying these principles, the Court found that respondent sheriff’s immediate implementation of the writ did not constitute abuse of authority or grave coercion. It held that respondent acted within the scope of authority and within the bounds of the required duty because the essence of the job was to give the prevailing party in the ejectment case full control and possession of the subject lot. The Court considered the use of police assistance and the locking of complainants’ doors as reasonable and necessary means to enforce the writ.

The Court also highlighted the evidentiary burden in administrative proceedings. It held that the complainant must prove the allegations by substantial evidence. In the absence of contrary evidence, the law presumes that a sheriff regularly performed official duties. The Court applied that presumption and sustained it on the record.

Finally, while the Court reiterated that it would not tolerate any conduct violating public accountability or diminishing p

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms