A.M. No. P-92-740 February 15, 1994
Dionisio and Luz Sakay, complainants, vs. Deputy Sheriff Maximo Andal, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from an unlawful detainer action filed by Jesus Morales against complainants Dionisio and Luz Sakay before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Meycauayan, Bulacan, concerning the complainants’ conjugal home. Morales alleged the property was sold to him. Simultaneously with the complaint, Morales moved for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to gain possession. The MTC granted the motion and issued the writ on January 22, 1992. Complainants filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the MTC judge and the provincial sheriff before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which temporarily restrained the writ’s enforcement. Morales then petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) to nullify the RTC’s restraining order. On June 26, 1992, the CA upheld the MTC’s action and set aside the RTC’s order. Complainants received the CA decision on July 21, 1992. However, on July 8, 1992, before complainants received the CA decision, respondent sheriff, together with PNP members, forcibly ejected complainants by removing their personal belongings from the premises. Complainants filed an administrative complaint against respondent sheriff for serious irregularities, misconduct, dishonesty, and misbehavior, alleging he implemented the writ before the CA decision became final and executory. In his comment, respondent admitted implementing the writ on that date, arguing that any motion for reconsideration or appeal would be futile since the CA had already pronounced the RTC’s restraining order invalid. The parties submitted the case for resolution based on the pleadings. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a fine of P5,000.00, finding respondent abused his authority by prematurely enforcing the writ in violation of procedural rules.

ISSUE

Whether respondent sheriff committed serious misconduct by prematurely enforcing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction before the Court of Appeals decision had become final and executory.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent sheriff guilty of serious misconduct. The Court emphasized that execution shall issue only upon a judgment or order that finally disposes of the action, and such execution shall issue as a matter of right only after the expiration of the period to appeal if no appeal has been perfected. Under Section 1 of Rule 39 in relation to Section 11 of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court, if a judgment has been appealed, execution may issue as a matter of right only after the records are remanded to the lower court and the parties are notified. In this case, the CA decision had not yet become final and executory when respondent enforced the writ; complainants had not even received the decision, and no notice of remand from the appellate court had been issued. The fact that respondent obtained a copy of the CA decision did not justify execution, as the appealed judgment had not acquired finality and the procedural requirements were not complied with. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 on respondent sheriff with a warning that a similar infraction would be dealt with more severely.