G.R. No. RTJ-87-98 March 26, 1992
Amelia B. Juvida, complainant, vs. Hon. Manuel Serapio, Judge, and Virgilio Soriano, Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City, respondents.

FACTS

The Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City ordered the ejectment of defendants spouses Leopoldo and Natividad Dipad from a property owned by Soledad Bautista, mother of complainant Amelia B. Juvida. This decision was affirmed in toto by respondent Judge Manuel Serapio of the Regional Trial Court on February 5, 1987. Prior to this judgment, an administrative complaint (A.M. No. RTJ-87-73) was filed against Judge Serapio for failure to decide the case within the 90-day period, but the judgment was released before the Court could act on it. The defendants moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and a writ of execution was issued on May 26, 1987. Respondent Deputy Sheriff Virgilio Soriano served a notice to vacate. The defendants filed a motion to lift the order of execution, which was denied, and they subsequently attempted to seek relief from the Court of Appeals via a petition for review and certiorari. Their motion for extension was denied, and their case was dismissed, but entry of judgment was not made, delaying execution. Complainant Juvida filed this administrative case on June 8, 1987, accusing Judge Serapio and Sheriff Soriano of failing to execute the judgment despite payment of sheriff’s fees and alleging that Judge Serapio received money from the defendants. Both respondents denied the charges. Juvida also filed a criminal complaint with the Tanodbayan, which was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. After receipt of the Court of Appeals’ resolution denying the defendants’ motion and the notice of entry of judgment, Judge Serapio directed the remand of records to the court of origin, leading to the defendants’ ouster and restoration of possession to the plaintiff’s heirs.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Manuel Serapio and Deputy Sheriff Virgilio Soriano are administratively liable for misconduct, including failure to execute a judgment and receiving money from parties.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The investigation by Associate Justice Jainal D. Rasul of the Court of Appeals found that the delay in execution was due to the procedural steps taken by the defendants, which were part of their statutory due process rights, and not due to any misconduct by the respondents. No evidence was presented to establish any dishonesty or evil design on the part of Judge Serapio. Similarly, no proof was found that Sheriff Soriano received any money other than or in excess of authorized fees. The Court concluded that the complaint lacked adequate evidentiary foundation and could have been avoided with diligence in reviewing the records.