G.R. No. MTJ-93-853 and G.R. No. P-94-1013. March 14, 1995
Domingo Balantes, complainant, vs. Judge Julian Ocampo III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch I, Naga City, respondent. Domingo Balantes, complainant, vs. Lilia S. Buena, Clerk of Court, MTCC, Naga City/Ex-officio Naga City Sheriff, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Domingo Balantes was the defendant in an ejectment case decided against him by respondent Judge Julian Ocampo III. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Naga City, issued a Writ of Execution and Demolition pending appeal, ordering the removal of only the one-half portion of Balantes’s house encroaching on the plaintiff’s titled property. This writ was fully satisfied. The RTC decision, which incorporated specific findings from a geodetic survey showing the house encroached two meters on private land and three meters on a public easement, was subsequently affirmed by higher courts.
Upon remand of the case records, Judge Ocampo, upon motion of the plaintiff, issued new writs of demolition in 1991 and 1992 targeting the remaining portion of the house situated on the public easement. The RTC, in a petition for certiorari, declared the 1991 demolition order null and void for grave abuse of discretion and enjoined Judge Ocampo from issuing further writs. Defiantly, Judge Ocampo issued another writ in August 1992, which was subsequently restrained by a different RTC branch. The complaint against Clerk of Court Lilia Buena, the ex-officio sheriff, alleged she implemented the writs without giving Balantes a chance to seek reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Julian Ocampo III committed gross abuse of authority in issuing the subsequent writs of demolition, and whether respondent Lilia Buena is administratively liable for her implementation of the writ.

RULING

Yes, Judge Ocampo committed gross abuse of authority. The legal logic is anchored on the finality and specificity of the appellate court’s judgment. The RTC, as an appellate court in the ejectment case, had definitively delineated the property boundaries and limited the demolition to only the portion of the house encroaching on private land. Its decision, which became final after affirmance by the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, constituted the law of the case. Judge Ocampo, as the executing judge of the court of origin, was bound by this final judgment. His issuance of new writs to demolish the portion on the public easement directly contravened the explicit terms of the affirmed decision and the subsequent RTC order declaring his actions void. His defiance of a lawful injunction from a superior court further exemplified gross abuse of judicial authority and warranted administrative sanction.
Regarding Clerk of Court Buena, she is not liable. The legal principle is that a sheriff is mandated to execute a valid writ promptly and cannot exercise discretion to refuse its implementation. The records show she implemented the August 1992 writ on September 2, 1992, and only received the RTC’s Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) after the demolition was completed. As the TRO was a fait accompli upon receipt, and there was no showing she acted in bad faith or with prior knowledge of the injunction, she performed her ministerial duty. Thus, the complaint against her was dismissed. The Court fined Judge Ocampo and issued a warning.