A.M. No. MTJ-99-1199. July 6, 2000.
FRANCISCO LU, complainant, vs. JUDGE ORLANDO ANA F. SIAPNO, MTC-URDANETA, PANGASINAN, DOMINGO S. LOPEZ, SHERIFF IV, RTC-URDANETA, PANGASINAN, BRANCH 45 and PRIVATE PROSECUTOR JOSELINO A. VIRAY, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Francisco Lu was the defendant in an ejectment case before respondent Judge Orlando Ana F. Siapno. After the MTC ruled against Lu, he appealed. While the appeal was pending before the RTC, the MTC Clerk of Court issued a writ of execution, which was implemented by forcibly ejecting Lu. The RTC later nullified this writ. Subsequently, the RTC modified but affirmed the MTC judgment on the merits. Judge Siapno then granted several post-judgment motions filed by the winning party—including a motion for execution, a motion to withdraw a cash deposit, and a motion for demolition—all allegedly without the required notice and hearing for Lu. Sheriff Domingo Lopez implemented the demolition order immediately upon issuance.
Lu filed this administrative complaint, charging Judge Siapno with gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and misconduct, and Sheriff Lopez with gross abuse of authority. Judge Siapno defended his actions, arguing that the Rules on Summary Procedure governed the case, that his clerk issued the initial writ without his authority, and that the subsequent orders were proper after the RTC affirmance. Sheriff Lopez claimed he was merely performing a ministerial duty.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Siapno and Sheriff Lopez are administratively liable for their actions in the execution proceedings of the ejectment case.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. The Supreme Court found Judge Siapno guilty of gross ignorance of the law. While the initial erroneous writ issued by his clerk may not be directly attributable to him, his subsequent orders granting execution and demolition without notice and hearing constituted a blatant disregard of established rules. In ejectment cases, execution follows a summary procedure only after the judgment becomes final and executory. Granting a motion for execution and, more importantly, a motion for demolition, requires a hearing and prior notice to the losing party to comply with due process. The Judge’s failure to observe these basic procedural safeguards warranted a penalty.
Sheriff Lopez was found guilty of gross abuse of authority. The enforcement of a writ of execution in ejectment cases is not purely ministerial. The sheriff must give the defendant a reasonable notice, typically three to five days, to voluntarily comply before effecting a forcible eviction or demolition. Lopez’s immediate implementation of the demolition order, without affording Lu this crucial period, was a clear violation of the rules and an abuse of his authority. The Court reduced the recommended fines, imposing P5,000.00 each on Judge Siapno and Sheriff Lopez, with a warning against repetition. The Court also directed the Court Administrator to initiate a separate case against the Clerk of Court.