G.R. No. RTJ-00-1531; November 28, 2000
Reynaldo Magat, complainant, vs. Judge Gregorio G. Pimentel, Jr., Clerk of Court Avelino S. Buan, Sheriff Florencio S. Razon, Regional Trial Court, Branch 50, Guagua, Pampanga, respondents.

FACTS

This administrative case stemmed from an unlawful detainer case decided by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sasmuan, Pampanga, in favor of plaintiffs Manuelito and Catalina Bagasina against defendants spouses Vicente Magat. The MTC ordered the defendants and all persons claiming under them to vacate the property. The defendants appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guagua, Branch 50, presided by respondent Judge Gregorio G. Pimentel, Jr. The RTC affirmed the MTC decision. Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved for a writ of demolition. In an Order dated July 6, 1999, Judge Pimentel granted the motion and directed the issuance of a writ, which listed specific names of persons whose structures were to be demolished, including “Reynaldo ( ) and Dominga Maninang.”
On July 27, 1999, respondent Sheriff Florencio Razon enforced the writ and demolished several houses. Among the structures demolished was the house of complainant Reynaldo Magat, who was not a named party in the original ejectment case. Magat filed an administrative complaint, alleging grave misconduct and abuse of discretion. He argued that the demolition violated due process as he was a stranger to the case and that the writ mistakenly targeted him instead of “Reynaldo Maninang.” Respondents defended the action, contending that the writ bound all persons claiming under the original defendants and that the naming error was a mere clerical omission.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Pimentel and Sheriff Razon are administratively liable for the demolition of a house owned by a person not a party to the ejectment case and for the judge’s assumption of jurisdiction to order execution.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that Judge Pimentel committed gross ignorance of the law. In ejectment cases, the rule is explicit: once the RTC affirms the MTC decision on appeal, the execution of that judgment falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC that rendered the original decision. The appellate court (RTC) cannot decree its execution under the guise of executing its own affirming decision, unless it had earlier granted an execution pending appeal—which was not the case here. The RTC decision had become final and executory by the time Judge Pimentel issued the demolition order. His proper course of action was to remand the records to the MTC of Sasmuan for execution. By failing to do so and directly ordering the demolition, he displayed a lack of circumspection amounting to gross ignorance of basic procedural rules.
Regarding Sheriff Razon, he was liable for arbitrary execution. The writ of demolition specifically listed “Reynaldo ( ) and Dominga Maninang.” The sheriff proceeded to demolish the house of “Reynaldo Magat,” a distinctly named individual not identified in the writ. His failure to verify the identity and authority before enforcing the writ, thereby affecting a non-party, constituted arbitrary conduct. The Court imposed a fine of P3,000.00 on Judge Pimentel and P1,000.00 on Sheriff Razon. The charges against Clerk of Court Avelino Buan were dismissed, as his issuance of the writ was merely ministerial upon the judge’s lawful order.