A.M. No. P-90-512. March 22, 1993.
CRISPIN CARREON and NORMA RUFINO-CARREON, complainants, vs. EDUARDO MENDIOLA, Deputy Sheriff of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 43, Quezon City, and ROBERTO MIRRERA (MERRERA), Deputy Sheriff, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 31, Quezon City, respondents.

FACTS

Complainants Crispin Carreon and Norma Rufino-Carreon were defendants in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 43-2731) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Quezon City, Branch 43. On June 11, 1990, the MTC, per Judge Billy M. Apalit, rendered a decision ordering the complainants to vacate and demolish their house and to pay rentals and attorney’s fees. Complainants filed a notice of appeal. The plaintiff moved for execution pending appeal, which was granted. A Writ of Execution Pending Appeal was issued on August 15, 1990, assigned to respondent Deputy Sheriff Eduardo Mendiola for enforcement. On August 16, 1990, complainants filed a supersedeas bond. On August 22, 1990, the MTC issued an order approving the bond, reconsidering and setting aside the writ of execution pending appeal. Despite this order, on August 25, 1990 (a Saturday), respondents Mendiola and Roberto Merrera (a deputy sheriff from another MTC branch), together with a demolition crew, demolished the complainants’ house. Complainants alleged the demolition was illegal and without a specific demolition order from the court, causing them actual damages.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Deputy Sheriffs Eduardo Mendiola and Roberto Merrera are administratively liable for their actions in demolishing the complainants’ house.

RULING

Yes, respondents are guilty of grave misconduct, gross ignorance of duties, oppression, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Supreme Court found that the demolition was carried out in blatant disregard of the safeguards under Section 14, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, which requires a special order of the court, issued upon petition of the judgment creditor after due hearing, and after the judgment debtor fails to remove the improvements within a reasonable time. No such special order was issued. Furthermore, the demolition proceeded despite the MTC’s August 22, 1990 order setting aside the writ of execution pending appeal. The act was aggravated by notorious bad faith and malice, as it was conducted on a Saturday when courts were closed, depriving complainants of immediate redress. Respondent Merrera’s claim that he was merely acting as a witness and protector for Mendiola was rejected, as he had no authority to attend to writs of another branch without court authorization, and there was no showing of any threat justifying such protection. The Court ruled that respondents conspired in committing the acts. The penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, was imposed.