THIRD DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 17-2923-MTJ. September 21, 2020.]
SPOUSES FLORENTINO AND CONSOLACION TABALNO, complainants,vs. PRESIDING JUDGE DIVINO NIÑO P. POLO, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT [MCTC], ABUYOG-JAVIER, ABUYOG LEYTE; AND DEPUTY SHERIFF IV CLEMENTINO V. RUDAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], BRANCH 10, ABUYOG LEYTE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 21, 2020, which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 17-2923-MTJ(Spouses Florentino and Consolacion Tabalno v. Presiding Judge Divino Niño P. Polo, Municipal Circuit Trial Court [MCTC], Abuyog-Javier, Abuyog Leyte; and Deputy Sheriff IV Clementino V. Rudas, Regional Trial Court [RTC], Branch 10, Abuyog Leyte). — For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration 1 of complainant Spouses Florentino and Consolacion Tabalno (Spouses Tabalno) assailing the Resolution 2 of this Court dated April 8, 2019, which dismissed the administrative complaint for abuse of authority and misconduct against Judge Divino Niño P. Polo (Judge Polo) and Deputy Sheriff IV Clementino V. Rudas (Sheriff Rudas). 3 HTcADC
The instant administrative complaint arose from an ejectment suit for forcible entry filed by Paulino Dingal Sr. against several persons, among whom were complainant Spouses Tabalno. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 3682 and was raffled to the 12th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) Abuyog-Javier, Leyte. 4 On March 31, 2008, the MCTC rendered its Decision. 5 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
Wherefore, Judgment is hereby rendered against defendants Spouses Florentino and Consolacion Tabalno, and likewise defendants Victoriano Tuale, Dionisio Mansueto, Iñego Cabus and Bienvenido Dinglasa, ordering said defendants;
1) To vacate the premises in question and to restore possession thereof to plaintiff Paulino Dingal;
2) Remove or demolish any and all structures illegally constructed therein at the expense of the defendants;
3) Pay the plaintiff the following:
A. P50,000.00 as damages suffered by complainant for the use and occupation of the lot in dispute;
B. P30,000.00 as attorney's fees;
C. P3,500.00 as litigation expenses. 6
xxx xxx xxx
Facts in the Decision dated March 31, 2008 of the MCTC indicated that the properly in dispute involved 2000 square meters covered by Tax Declaration No. 02-19023-00059 7 located in Pinocawan, Javier, Leyte. 8
Spouses Tabalno appealed the Decision with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Abuyog, Leyte, Branch 10. However, for their failure to furnish a supersedeas bond, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution dated February 23, 2009. 9 In a report 10 dated March 26, 2009 prepared by Sheriff Sulpicio M. Zabala (Sheriff Zabala), he stated that the Writ is partially served because Spouses Tabalno "refuse[d] to demolish the structure inside the property in question and pay their money judgment." 11 Eventually, the appeal with the RTC was dismissed affirming the Decision of the MCTC. Spouses Tabalno then appealed before the Court of Appeals (CA) which was also dismissed. The Decision of the CA attained finality and was recorded in the book of entries of judgment. 12
As a result of the foregoing and on motion of the heirs of Paulino Dingal Sr., the new presiding judge of the 12th MCTC, respondent Judge Polo issued a Writ or Execution dated April 14, 2015. 13 Spouses Tabalno moved to quash the Writ but was denied. They then filed other pleadings, particularly, a motion to stay execution which was denied and later a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. Spouses Tabalno filed their notice of appeal and in an Order 14 dated December 2, 2015, the notice of appeal was denied. The sheriff was likewise directed in said order to enforce the Writ or Execution dated April 14, 2015. 15
In a Report 16 dated January 12, 2016 prepared by respondent Sheriff Rudas, he stated that the writ was partially satisfied because Spouses Tabalno refused to pay the money judgment in the March 31, 2008 MCTC Decision. Sheriff Rudas recounted in his report that Spouses Tabalno also refused to leave the premises. They insisted that the subject matter of the MCTC Decision involves a property with 2,000 square meters only and not 20,000 square meters, which included the spouses' property. Sheriff Rudas explained to the spouses that the indication of 2,000 square meters in the MCTC decision was a clerical error and that the area to be executed was actually 20,000 square meters as correctly noted in Tax Declaration No. 02-19023-00059. This was also previously explained by Sheriff Zabala when he enforced the Writ of Execution dated February 23, 2009. Despite the explanation, Spouses Tabalno defied compliance with the Writ. As a result, Sheriff Rudas, with assistance of the Philippine National Police officers, proceeded with the execution and fenced the entire 20,000 square meter property. Spouses Tabalno were ordered to demolish the structures on the properly and vacate the same. 17
For failure to satisfy the Writ of Execution dated April 14, 2015, Judge Polo, upon motion of the heirs of Paulino Dingal Sr., issued an Alias Writ of Execution 18 and a Special Writ of Demolition 19 both dated March 23, 2016. Sheriff Rudas was to collect payment of the money judgment and to proceed with the demolition of the structures on the subject property. The sheriff successfully demolished the structures in the subject property. 20
For this reason, Spouses Tabalno filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Judge Polo and Sheriff Rudas for abuse of authority and misconduct. They claim that Judge Polo erred in issuing writs beyond what was stated in the MCTC Decision rendering the same invalid. Judge Polo also cannot claim that the issuance of the writs was merely ministerial because the period to execute the MCTC Decision had already lapsed. On the part of Sheriff Rudas, Spouses Tabalno claim that the sheriff erred in enforcing the invalid writs. The actions of both Judge Polo and Sheriff Rudas showed corruption and were in clear violation of the law and established rules. 21 DETACa
In his Comment, 22 Judge Polo argues that the allegations of Spouses Tabalno are baseless. He emphasizes that the MCTC Decision in the ejectment case is final and executory. In view of the finality of the decision, it becomes his duty to issue the Writ of Execution dated April 14, 2015 and the subsequent Alias Writ of Execution and Special Writ of Demolition both dated March 23, 2016. The demolition of the structures on the subject property was pursuant to the final and executory MCTC Decision. Judge Polo argues that filing the instant administrative complaint is frivolous. In fact, Spouses Tabalno filed other administrative complaints in relation to the ejectment case against several court officials, particularly, the previous presiding judge, clerk of court and sheriff of RTC Branch 10 Abuyog-Leyte, and the previous clerk of court of 12th MCTC Abuyog-Javier, Leyte. All administrative cases against said officers were dismissed for lack of merit. 23
Sheriff Rudas, for his part, 24 argues that he was performing his duties to enforce the Writ of Execution. He accordingly furnished Spouses Tabalno the Notice of Execution, which the spouses refuse to obey. As Spouses Tabalno were Sheriff Rudas's friends and former colleagues in court, he claims that the spouses sought from him the suspension of the execution. Otherwise, the spouses threatened to file an administrative case against Sheriff Rudas. Despite the threats, Sheriff Rudas proceeded with the implementation of the writs. He argues that enforcement of the Writ of Execution and subsequently the Alias Writ of Execution and Writ of Demolition are part of his duties. He cannot defy the orders of the court simply because he is pressured by Spouses Tabalno. 25
Spouses Tabalno filed their Reply 26 to the respective comments of the respondents reiterating their position that the issued Writs and the implementation thereof were invalid. 27
On November 12, 2018, the OCA issued its recommendation 28 to dismiss the complaint against Judge Polo and Sheriff Rudas for lack of merit. The matters concerning the legality of the writs of execution and demolition are judicial in nature, which can be elevated to the proper court for review through the filing of the appropriate judicial recourse under the law. The OCA further explained that assuming that the judge wrongly appreciated the facts and the law, the same do not necessarily render him administratively liable. Errors attributed to judges pertaining to their adjudicative functions should be assailed in judicial proceedings instead in an administrative case. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. In this case, the OCA did not find evidence to show the foregoing. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official judicial duty must prevail. 29
Anent the administrative case against Sheriff Rudas, the OCA also did not find error in his enforcement of the writs considering that was part of his duties. When writs are placed in the hands of sheriffs, it is their ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable promptness to execute them in accordance with their mandate. Sheriffs are to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter. Therefore, Sheriff Rudas cannot be faulted for implementing the Writ of Execution, Alias Writ of Execution and Writ of Demolition to place the Heirs of Paulino Dingal Sr. in possession of the litigated property. 30
As to the allegation that the decision is only limited to 2,000 square meters and not 20,000 square meters, OCA reiterates that this was an issue judicial in matter that cannot be threshed out in the present administrative proceeding. Any irregularity arising from the implementation of a writ shall be settled by the trial court that issued the same. The matter remains with the supervisory control of the court and the alleged errors committed by the court's ministerial officers, like Sheriff Rudas, should be correctible by the court. 31
After due consideration of the nature of the offense, and the evaluation of the OCA, this Court, in the assailed Resolution 32 dated April 8, 2019, adopted the recommendation of the OCA and dismissed the administrative complaint against Judge Polo and Sheriff Rudas. 33
Spouses Tabalno filed a motion for reconsideration 34 reiterating their position that the writs issued by Judge Polo and enforced by Sheriff Rudas are invalid. Execution on the 20,000 square meter property is in violation of the MCTC Decision which is only for 2,000 square meters. A perusal of the complaint of Paulino Dingal Sr. in the ejectment case would show that the property in dispute is only for 2,000 square meters. They also argue that Paulino Dingal Sr. is not the owner of the entire 20,000 square meter property because the deed of sale from which he derives ownership is still disputed in an ongoing appeal. Finally, Spouses Tabalno argue that they were not furnished a copy of the OCA Recommendation for their review and comment. 35
On December 4, 2019, the OCA issued its recommendation 36 to deny the motion for reconsideration. The OCA reiterates that the issues raised by Spouses Tabalno pertain to the writs issued by Judge Polo pursuant to his adjudicative functions which should be assailed in the proper reviewing court and not by means of an administrative complaint. In the same vein, the execution by Sheriff Rudas on the subject property are matters judicial in nature which is beyond the ambit of administrative proceedings. 37
Ruling of the Court
It is settled that only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. 38 Errors committed by a judge in the exercise of their adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies. 39 Disciplinary proceedings against judges are not complementary or suppletory nor a substitute for judicial remedies. 40 ATICcS
In this case, Spouses Tabalno assail the writs issued by Judge Polo for not conforming with the terms of the MCTC Decision. Clearly, their complaint pertains to Judge Polo's adjudicative functions for which the law provides ample judicial remedies against errors committed by the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. From the facts, We find that Spouses Tabalno knew of the proper remedies, particularly when they filed the Motion to Quash the Writ, 41 a Motion for Reconsideration 42 and a Notice of Appeal. 43 The allegations pertaining to the proper area to be executed upon are matters that cannot be threshed out in this administrative proceeding. Spouses Tabalno still have numerous judicial remedies to exhaust in order to determine any error in relation to whether the writs do not conform with the MCTC Decision. We also do not find any proof or allegation from Spouses Tabalno showing that Judge Polo acted with fraud, dishonesty und corruption in issuing the assailed writs. Similarly, Sheriff Rudas' actions in enforcing the writs are presumed to be done in good faith for failure of Spouses Tabalno to show otherwise. The functions of the sheriff in enforcing the writs are ministerial, not discretionary. 44 Once a writ is placed in the sheriff's hands, it is their duty to proceed with reasonable speed to enforce the writ, ensuring at all times that the implementation of the judgment is not unjustifiably deferred, unless the execution of which is restrained by the court. 45 Furthermore, any irregularity arising from the implementation of a writ shall be settled by the trial court that issued the same. 46 The proper recourse of Spouses Tabalno would have been to file a motion with or an application for relief from MCTC which issued the Decision, not from any other court. The reason for this is because the court which rendered the judgment has control over the processes of execution. 47 The power carries with it the right to determine every question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution. 48
Anent Spouses Tabalno's claim for not being furnished the OCA recommendation dated November 12, 2018, Section 5, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides that the report on the investigation of Justices and Judges are confidential and for the exclusive use of this Court. Confidentiality of the administrative proceeding is to enable this Court to make its own investigation free from extraneous influence, and to protect the personal and professional reputation of the Justices or Judges from baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive and irresponsible persons or litigants by prohibiting the publication of such charges pending final resolution. 49 The expectation of confidentiality is equally applicable to the administrative proceedings of the other court officials. It is only when this Court shall have rendered its decision or resolution in the administrative case that the proceedings ceases to be confidential. 50 Thus, failure of Spouses Tabalno to receive the OCA Recommendation prior this Court's resolution is not an irregularity in the administrative proceedings.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant administrative case against Judge Divino Niño P. Polo of the 12th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Abuyog-Javier, Leyte and Deputy Sheriff IV Clementino V. Rudas of the Regional Trial Court of Abuyog, Leyte, Branch 10 is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." (Zalameda, J., on wellness leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 101-102.
2.Id. at 99.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 58.
5.Id. at 58-75.
6.Id. at 74-75.
7.Id. at 58.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 44.
10.Id. at 76-77.
11.Id. at 77.
12.Id. at 46.
13.Id. at 47.
14.Id. at 38.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 39-40.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 43-48.
19.Id. at 41-42.
20.Id. at 48.
21.Id. at 2-3.
22.Id. at 53-57.
23.Id. at 55-56.
24.Id. at 28-35.
25.Id. at 31.
26.Id. at 80-85.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 85-94.
29.Id. at 91-92.
30.Id. at 92.
31.Id. at 92-93.
32.Id. at 99.
33.Id. at 94.
34.Id. at 101-102.
35.Id.
36.Id. at 110-112.
37.Id. at 111-112.
38.See Maylas, Jr. v. Judge Sese, 529 Phil. 594, 597 (2006).
39.Id.
40.Id.
41.Rollo, p. 47.
42.Id.
43.Id. at 38.
44. See Atty. Gonzales v. Calo, 685 Phil. 352, 360 (2012).
45.Id.
46.Collado v. Heirs of Alejandro Triunfante, 563 Phil. 713 (2007).
47.Id.
48.Id.
49. Agpalo, R., Comments on the Code of Professional Responsibility and The Code of Judicial Conduct, 2004 Ed., p. 610.
50.Id.