THIRD DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 16-4607-P. March 21, 2018.]
MARIO S. ORTIZO AND YOLANDA P. PACULABA, complainants, vs. FREDERICK F. AMPARO, SHERIFF III, BRANCH 73, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, PATEROS, METRO MANILA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 21, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"OCA IPI No. 16-4607-P (Mario S. Ortizo and Yolanda P. Paculaba v. Frederick F. Amparo, Sheriff III, Branch 73, Metropolitan Trial Court, Pateros, Metro Manila) — In a verified Letter-Complaint, 1 dated July 27, 2016, filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Mario S. Ortizo and Yolanda P. Paculaba (complainants) charged Frederick F. Amparo (respondent), Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Pateros, Metro Manila, Branch 73 (MeTC), with grave abuse of discretion and gross neglect of duty relative to Civil Case Nos. 1094-1099, 1105, 1108, 1114-1117, 1120 and 1121-99, entitled Eugenio P. Santos v. Caridad D. Lopez, et al.
Antecedents
Complainants averred that Judge Marilou D. Runes-Tamang of the MeTC issued a writ of demolition on April 21, 2015 relative to the abovementioned civil cases. The writ ordered the demolition of the improvements erected by the defendants in the portion of land belonging to the plaintiff. During the implementation of the writ, complainants' houses were also demolished despite the fact that they were not one of the defendants in the case. 2 Complainants claimed that they tried to convince respondent that their houses should not be demolished as they were not defendants to the case and the writ was not binding on them but respondent did not heed their plea. Complainants asserted that, in demolishing their houses, the respondent committed gross neglect of duty and grave abuse of discretion. 3
In his Comment, 4 respondent categorically denied the charges for being baseless, self-serving and unfounded. 5 He claimed that complainants were fully aware of the writ of demolition issued by the MeTC 6 and they should not be permitted to blatantly disregard the lawful decision of the court on the ground that they were not identified as defendants in the mentioned civil cases as they were trespassers fraudulently occupying the property. He countered that he was merely performing his ministerial duty as the branch sheriff when he implemented the writ against complainants within the bounds of law. 7
OCA's Recommendation
The OCA recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit. It opined that a sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial and that he is to execute the court order strictly and to the letter. He is mandated to uphold the majesty of the law as embodied in the decision, so when a writ is placed in his hands, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate. 8
The OCA explained that the complaint did not indicate any abuse of authority or any bad faith on the part of the respondent. Neither did the records show that there was any directive from the trial court or a higher court for him not to proceed with the execution of the writ. Thus, he is deemed to have performed his ministerial duty with regularity. 9
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts the OCA's recommendation.
It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the onus of establishing, by substantial evidence, the averments of his complaint. 10
In the present case, complainants simply alleged that the writ of demolition should not bind them because they were not impleaded as defendants in the civil case from which the writ arose. To prove the allegation, they attached a photocopy of only the first two pages of the MeTC decision 11 to show that they were not included as defendants. They also attached photocopies of Certificates of Lot Assignment 12 which showed that the lots they were occupying were allegedly owned by the local government of Pateros and that the latter acknowledged their residency thereon as members of the Loyal Urban Poor Association, Inc. Other than that, however, complainants did not present or offer any other evidence to show that they should not be bound by the writ of demolition.
In Pasion v. Melegrito, 13 the Court ruled that:
An ejectment suit is an action in personam wherein judgment is binding only upon parties properly impleaded and given an opportunity to be heard. However, the rule admits of the exception that even a non-party is bound by the judgment in an ejectment suit where he is any of the following: (a) trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of the defendant; (c) transferee pendente lite; (d) sublessee; (e) co-lessee; or (f) member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant. 14 [emphasis supplied]
Complainants failed to sufficiently establish that they did not fall under any of the abovementioned exceptions. On the contrary, respondent was simply exercising his ministerial duty of implementing the writ against the complainants who were deemed to be trespassers illegally occupying the property to frustrate the judgment of the court. 15 aScITE
It has been emphasized that being the frontline representative of the justice system, a sheriff must always exert every effort and, indeed, consider it his bounden duty, to perform his duties in order to maintain public trust. He must see to it that the final stage in the litigation process — the execution of the judgment — is carried out with no unnecessary delay, in order to ensure a speedy and efficient administration of justice. A decision left unexecuted or indefinitely delayed due to his neglect of duty renders it inutile; and worse, the parties who are prejudiced thereby tend to condemn the entire judicial system. 16
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Frederick F. Amparo, Sheriff III of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Pateros, Metro Manila, Branch 73, is DISMISSED for lack of merit. (Leonen, J., on official leave.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-3.
2.Id. at 24.
3.Id. at 2.
4.Id. at 20-23.
5.Id. at 20.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 22.
8.Id. at 25.
9.Id.
10.Miranda v. Raymundo, Jr., 749 Phil. 9, 16 (2014).
11.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
12.Id. at 8-9.
13. 548 Phil. 302 (2007).
14.Id. at 309.
15. Rollo, p. 22.
16. Judge Calo, et al. v. Dizon, 583 Phil. 510, 526-527 (2008).