G.R. No. MTJ-93-860 December 21, 1993
ELPIDIO SY, petitioner, vs. JUDGE EMELITA HABACON-GARAYBLAS, in her capacity as presiding Judge of Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, respondent.

FACTS

Elpidio Sy, the duly authorized representative of System Realty Development Corporation, filed a sworn complaint against Judge Emelita Habacon-Garayblas for gross ignorance of the law, partiality, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order in relation to Civil Case No. 131430-CV, an ejectment case. Respondent judge rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff on June 16, 1992, and issued a writ of execution on August 20, 1992. A Notice to Vacate was served on the defendant on August 21, 1992. However, when the sheriff was about to enforce the writ, respondent judge issued an Order dated August 24, 1992, directing the sheriff to hold in abeyance the implementation of the writ. This order was based on an unverified Manifestation filed by Dr. Peter B. Flores, who claimed to be the occupant of the subject premises. Complainant alleged that respondent judge maliciously refused to lift this order despite several motions and even filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court to compel implementation. In her comment, respondent judge explained that her actions were to judiciously resolve whether Dr. Flores was claiming rights under the defendant and whether the writ could be enforced against him, setting the Manifestation for hearing. She noted that due to the petition for mandamus, the records were taken from her sala, and a motion for withdrawal of that petition was pending.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Emelita Habacon-Garayblas is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, partiality, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order for suspending the implementation of a writ of execution in an ejectment case based on an unverified manifestation by a third-party claimant.

RULING

The complaint is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court found respondent judge’s explanation satisfactory. Her act of suspending the writ of execution was justified under the doctrine in Sta. Ana v. Suñga, which holds that when a third party or stranger to the case claims actual possession, the proper procedure is to order a hearing on the matter of such possession before enforcing the writ, to avoid deprivation of property rights without due process. The fact that Dr. Flores’s manifestation was unverified is not jurisdictional; verification is a formal requirement, and courts may act on unverified pleadings to serve the ends of justice. Respondent judge could not act on the motions to lift the order because the records were taken due to the petition for mandamus filed by complainant. Complainant failed to show that respondent acted with bad faith, illegal motive, or evident partiality. Respondent judge is directed to take action and resolve the cases subject of this complaint with dispatch.