A.M. No. 2358-MJ. June 29, 1982.
Salud Clemente-de Guzman, complainant, vs. Municipal Judge Tirso Reyes, and Deputy Sheriffs Pablo C. Iral and Rogelio T. Agay, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Salud Clemente-de Guzman was a defendant in an ejectment case before the Municipal Court of Pulilan, Bulacan, presided by respondent Judge Tirso Reyes. The municipal court decided against her, a decision affirmed on appeal by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan. The CFI records, with a mittimus, were remanded to the municipal court on December 14, 1979. On February 4, 1980, respondent Judge Reyes, upon plaintiff’s motion, issued a writ of execution, which respondent Deputy Sheriffs Pablo Iral and Rogelio Agay enforced that same day.
Complainant charged Judge Reyes with grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law for the allegedly premature issuance of the writ. She contended the CFI decision was not yet final, as her counsel had not been notified of it. Against the sheriffs, she alleged they enforced the writ after office hours, used threats and intimidation, collected an excess amount, and issued a non-official receipt for the payment.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Reyes committed grave abuse of authority or gross ignorance of the law in issuing the writ of execution, and whether respondent sheriffs committed irregularities in its enforcement warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the charges against Judge Reyes but admonished the sheriffs for issuing a private receipt. Regarding Judge Reyes, the Court found no legal basis for the complaint. The remand of the case records together with the mittimus (the final process for effecting an appellate decision) justified the judge in considering the CFI judgment final. The granting of a motion for execution of a final judgment is a ministerial duty. Any failure in notifying complainant of the CFI decision was the responsibility of the CFI clerk, not Judge Reyes. Furthermore, the duty to notify parties of the receipt of records from the appellate court, under Rule 51, Section 11, applies to the clerk of the CFI, not to the municipal judge. Thus, the judge committed no capricious or malicious act.
Concerning the sheriffs, the Court found the first three charges unsubstantiated. No rule prohibits enforcement after office hours. The allegation of threats was denied and unsupported by evidence. The claim of over-collection could not be resolved due to insufficient reliable data in the records. However, the sheriffs admitted issuing a private receipt instead of an official one, violating the National Accounting and Auditing Manual. While culpable, the Court considered it an extenuating circumstance that they immediately delivered the collected sum to the judgment creditor without misappropriation. They were admonished with a warning.