AM RTJ 00 1579; (January, 2001) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1579. January 18, 2001. GERARDO M. SANTOS, et al., complainants, vs. Judge LORENZO R. SILVA JR., et al., respondents.
FACTS
Complainants, owners of beach resorts in Morong, Bataan, alleged that their properties were illegally demolished in March 1999 by a private group acting under a writ of demolition issued in Civil Case No. 5702, an accion publiciana case. They were not parties to that case. The original 1995 judgment and subsequent writs ordered only the named defendants to vacate and remove structures from specific lots. However, an alias writ of demolition dated November 12, 1998, prepared by Acting Clerk of Court Marvin Soriano, erroneously expanded its coverage to include “third parties.” Although this error was later corrected by the court through subsequent orders and a final alias writ directed only at “defendants and all persons claiming rights under them,” the complainants’ properties were still demolished.
ISSUE
Whether respondents are administratively liable for the demolition of properties owned by non-parties to the case.
RULING
Yes, but only Judge Silva and Acting Clerk of Court Soriano were held liable. The sheriffs were absolved as the evidence showed they implemented the correct, final alias writ. The Supreme Court found Soriano administratively liable for simple neglect of duty. His inadvertent insertion of “third parties” into the writ, even if later corrected, constituted negligence in the performance of his duty to prepare court processes faithfully and accurately. He was fined P5,000.00.
The Court emphasized that proper and efficient court management is the judge’s responsibility. Judge Silva was found liable for failure to exercise diligent supervision over his court personnel. He could not evade responsibility by invoking the clerk of court’s negligence. Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to supervise court personnel to ensure prompt, efficient service. The judge’s failure to exercise greater care, especially since Soriano was merely an acting clerk of court, warranted a reprimand. The Court ruled that court personnel are not the guardians of a judge’s responsibilities; the judge bears the ultimate responsibility for the proper issuance of court orders.