G.R. No. MTJ-95-1026. April 17, 1996
Ruben Barbosa, petitioner, vs. Judge Efren A. Lamorena, Branch Clerk Clarita Q. Malanay, Sheriff Mario S. Pangilinan, Metropolitan Trial Court — Branch 73, Pateros, Metro Manila, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Ruben Barbosa, the defendant in an ejectment case, charged respondents with grave abuse of authority and misconduct. He alleged that after he failed to appear at a preliminary conference due to a sudden trip, respondent Judge Lamorena issued an order allowing the plaintiff to file a position paper. Despite Barbosa’s subsequent motions, the judge rendered a judgment against him without resolving pending incidents or allowing him to submit his position paper. Upon appeal, the judge issued an order for execution due to Barbosa’s failure to post a supersedeas bond, which motion was received by the court only after the execution order was issued.
Respondent Sheriff Pangilinan then served a “Notice to Vacate” on August 31, 1994, giving Barbosa five days to comply. However, on the same day, the sheriff immediately levied on Barbosa’s personal properties and issued a notice of sale set for September 5, 1994. The sheriff also demanded P30,000 for non-implementation. Although Barbosa filed a motion to hold the auction in abeyance, which the judge granted, the sheriff proceeded with the sale at 10:30 a.m. on September 5, claiming he received the suspension order only at 3:45 p.m. that day.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents are administratively liable for their actions in handling the ejectment case and implementing the writ of execution.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the charges against Judge Lamorena and Clerk of Court Malanay but found Sheriff Pangilinan guilty of misconduct. The Court found no abuse of authority by the judge. His order for execution was issued on August 23, 1994, before the court received Barbosa’s motion to fix the supersedeas bond on August 25, 1994. The judge promptly acted on the motion thereafter. Motions for postponement in summary ejectment cases are not granted as a matter of right. The charges against the clerk of court were unsubstantiated, as records showed court orders were duly sent to the parties.
However, Sheriff Pangilinan acted with undue haste. His own notice gave Barbosa a five-day grace period from August 31 until September 5 to vacate. Despite this, he levied on properties immediately on August 31 and conducted the auction sale in the morning of September 5, before the grace period expired at midnight. This precipitate implementation constituted misconduct. The Court imposed a fine of P2,000.00 and issued a caution.