A.M. No. MTJ-89-269 and A.M. No. P-89-292. July 23, 1990.
LOURDES McCORMACK and BLAISE McCORMACK, complainants, vs. HON. JOSE G. MONTEMAYOR, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Branch I, Angeles City, respondent. SPOUSES BLAISE and LOURDES McCORMACK, complainants, vs. TOMASITO B. LISING, Deputy Sheriff, Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, MTCC, Angeles City, respondent.

FACTS

These consolidated administrative cases arose from an ejectment suit filed against complainants McCormack by their lessor, Leonida Usi. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled for Usi, a decision affirmed with modification by RTC Branch 57, Angeles City, presided by Judge Eliodoro Guinto, on November 28, 1988. The complainants had deposited a supersedeas bond and monthly rentals. Judge Guinto’s decision was received by complainants’ counsel only on December 28, 1988. On January 2, 1989, Usi filed an urgent ex-parte motion to remand the case to the MTC, which Judge Guinto granted immediately without notice to complainants. The records were remanded that same afternoon.
On January 3, 1989, upon Usi’s ex-parte motion, MTC Judge Jose Montemayor issued an order for immediate execution and a corresponding writ. The writ erroneously described the case as one for a “Sum of Money.” On January 5, 1989, Judge Montemayor granted Usi’s ex-parte “Break-Open” order, which inaccurately identified the target as the complainants’ “residential premises” instead of the Manhattan Transfer Restaurant, the actual subject of the ejectment. Deputy Sheriff Tomasito Lising, without clarifying this discrepancy, broke into the restaurant on January 6, 1989, hauled away property, and levied on the building. He issued a Notice of Sale but failed to properly serve copies to complainants’ counsel, merely posting them in the courthouse. The auction was held on January 17, 1989, after 5:00 PM, despite objections and a pending petition for review with the Court of Appeals. Usi bought the property at a low price.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Montemayor and Sheriff Lising, along with Judge Guinto, are administratively liable for their actions in the execution proceedings of the ejectment case.

RULING

Yes, all three court officers were found administratively liable. The Supreme Court, acting on an investigator’s report, found their actions constituted grave partiality, gross negligence, and misconduct. For Judge Eliodoro Guinto (though not nominally a respondent, implicated by the allegations), the Court found grave partiality. He released his decision late, shortening the appeal period over the holidays, and then hastily granted an ex-parte remand motion without legal basis—the decision was not affirmance in toto due to a modification, making the cited rule on immediate execution inapplicable. He ignored his duty to exercise judicial discretion and act on the complainants’ opposition, failing to hold execution in abeyance despite a supersedeas bond and pending appeal. He was fined P5,000.
Judge Jose Montemayor was found guilty of gross negligence and grave partiality. He issued the execution and break-open orders ex-parte without ensuring complainants received copies. The break-open order contained a critical error in describing the premises, demonstrating a reckless disregard for accuracy and due process. He was fined P8,000. Deputy Sheriff Tomasito Lising