A.M. No. P-1687. February 28, 1979. ANGEL MANALILI, et al., complainants, vs. DANILO VIESCA and RENATO ROBLES, respondents. Re: Acting Municipal Judge Vivencio A. Bantugan.
FACTS

This administrative matter originated from a complaint against Deputy Sheriffs Danilo Viesca and Renato Robles for alleged irregularities in executing a demolition order dated July 12, 1977, in Civil Case No. 179 (an illegal detainer case) from the Municipal Court of Dinalupihan, Bataan. The Court dismissed the complaint against the sheriffs but required Acting Municipal Judge Vivencio A. Bantugan to explain why he should not be administratively sanctioned for issuing the demolition order. The specific concern was that the order was issued via an ex-parte motion to execute a judgment over ten years old, potentially violating Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on the enforcement of judgments by motion.
In his explanation, Judge Bantugan contended the judgment, rendered in 1966, had been executed within the five-year period via a sheriff’s return in 1966. The 1977 demolition order was a subsequent ancillary process. He also noted the order had been challenged in a certiorari and prohibition case (G.R. No. L-46452), which the Supreme Court dismissed for lack of merit. The record showed the plaintiff filed an “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Immediate Issuance of an Order of Demolition” in January 1977.

ISSUE

Whether Acting Municipal Judge Vivencio A. Bantugan should be held administratively liable for issuing the demolition order in question.

RULING

The Court found Judge Bantugan’s explanation satisfactory and held no administrative action lies against him. The legal logic is twofold. First, the order was not issued merely on an ex-parte basis. Despite the motion being labeled “ex-parte,” Judge Bantugan conducted a full hearing on January 21, 1977, with proper notice to all parties. The hearing considered various factors, including a request for deferment from the Office of the President and the subsequent final resolution of a related agrarian protest in favor of the plaintiff. These facts were made known to the complainants in a hearing on June 3, 1977. Therefore, the order resulted from a considered evaluation, not an ex-parte proceeding.
Second, the issuance was legally justified and within judicial discretion. The core judgment for ejectment had been executed within five years as required. The subsequent demolition order was a separate proceeding governed by Section 14, Rule 39, which authorizes a court, upon motion and after hearing, to issue a special order for the removal of improvements if the defeated party fails to do so within a reasonable time. This provision, rooted in fairness, allows flexibility in timing its implementation based on circumstances. The Court cited Albetz Investments, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, affirming a court’s authority to order demolition to effectuate a restitution judgment and noting the law sets no strict deadline for such an order’s execution. The prior dismissal of the certiorari petition against the order by the Supreme Court further bolstered its validity. Thus, Judge Bantugan acted within his jurisdiction and sound discretion.