A.M. No. MTJ-00-1283. March 3, 2004. COL. OCTAVIO ALVAREZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE AUGUSTUS C. DIAZ, ATTY. VICTORY EDRALIN and MR. EFREN P. LUNA, respondents.
FACTS

Complainant Col. Octavio Alvarez was a defendant in a forcible entry case before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City, Branch 37, presided by respondent Judge Augustus C. Diaz. The court ruled against Alvarez, ordering him to vacate the premises and pay compensation. Alvarez received the decision on January 7, 1998, and filed a Notice of Appeal on January 14, 1998. He paid the appellate docket fees on January 15, 1998. However, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Execution, arguing the decision had become final due to non-payment of fees within the reglementary period. On February 3, 1998, Judge Diaz dismissed Alvarez’s appeal for late payment and granted the motion for execution, issuing a writ on the same day. A writ of demolition was later issued and executed on March 11, 1998, demolishing Alvarez’s structures.
Subsequently, on March 20, 1998, Judge Diaz motu proprio reconsidered his February 3 order, having received proof that Alvarez had indeed paid the docket fees on time. The records were then forwarded to the Regional Trial Court on appeal. Alvarez filed this administrative complaint, alleging grave abuse of authority, gross misconduct, and solicitation of gifts against Judge Diaz, Clerk of Court Victory Edralin, and Deputy Sheriff Efren Luna. He contended the execution and demolition were illegal as his appeal was perfected, and the orders were issued without proper notice and hearing.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for grave abuse of authority and gross misconduct in connection with the issuance and implementation of the writs of execution and demolition.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Judge Diaz administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and procedure, but dismissed the charges against Clerk of Court Edralin and Deputy Sheriff Luna. The legal logic centers on the judge’s failure to observe fundamental procedural rules. For an appeal in ejectment cases to stay execution, a defendant must both perfect the appeal and file a supersedeas bond or deposit the admitted rentals. Judge Diaz correctly noted Alvarez failed to file a supersedeas bond, which justified granting the motion for execution under Section 19, Rule 70. However, his dismissal of the Notice of Appeal for alleged late payment of docket fees was a serious error, as the payment was made within the reglementary period. This error, compounded by his subsequent motu proprio reversal after the demolition, demonstrated gross ignorance of basic procedural rules.
The Court emphasized that a judge is presumed to know the law, and failure to apply elementary rules constitutes gross ignorance. The judge’s actions, though not proven to be in bad faith, exhibited such gross negligence as to warrant administrative sanction. The charges of solicitation of gifts were dismissed for lack of credible evidence. As for the clerk of court and sheriff, they were merely performing their ministerial duties in implementing the court’s lawful orders; they cannot be faulted for the judge’s legal errors. Judge Diaz was fined P20,000 for gross ignorance of the law.