G.R. No. RTJ-01-1615; June 19, 2001
WINNIE BAJET, petitioner, vs. JUDGE PEDRO M. AREOLA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY (BRANCH 85), respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Winnie Bajet, a defendant in an ejectment case, charged respondent Judge Pedro M. Areola with various offenses. The procedural history, as per the complaint and respondent’s comment, is as follows: On June 23, 1999, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Endorse Alias Writ of Execution. On June 26, 1999, the defendants filed a Motion to Quash Alias Writ of Execution. On August 16, 1999, respondent issued an Order giving both parties time to file comment and reply on the motion to quash. On August 27, 1999, defendants received plaintiff’s Comment on the motion to quash and a separate Motion to Issue Writ of Demolition. On August 30, 1999, defendants filed their Opposition to the Motion to Issue Writ of Demolition. On September 2, 1999, defendants received respondent’s August 16 Order and a separate Order denying their motion to quash the alias writ of execution. On September 3, 1999, respondent issued an Order granting the plaintiff’s motion to issue a writ of demolition. On September 13, 1999, the deputy sheriff implemented the demolition. Complainant contends respondent abused his authority by denying the motion to quash before the expiration of the 10-day reply period and by issuing the demolition order without a hearing. Respondent defended his actions, stating the motion to quash was a mere rehash of a previously denied motion and that the demolition motion was non-litigious and thus did not require a hearing.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent judge acted properly in denying the Motion to Quash Alias Writ of Execution.
2. Whether respondent judge acted properly in issuing the Order for demolition without a hearing.

RULING

1. On the denial of the Motion to Quash Alias Writ of Execution, the Court found respondent incurred no liability. The denial was proper as the defendants failed to comply with Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a supersedeas bond and periodic rental deposits to stay execution in ejectment cases. Furthermore, the motion was a second motion reiterating previously ruled-upon grounds, making an immediate denial proper.
2. On the issuance of the demolition Order, the Court found respondent judge LIABLE for gross ignorance of the law. Respondent incorrectly classified the “Ex-parte Motion for an Order to Break In or for a Writ of Demolition” as non-litigious. The Court ruled that Section 10(d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a special order for the removal or demolition of improvements on a property subject of execution can only be issued “upon motion of the judgment obligee after due hearing.” By issuing the demolition order without first conducting a hearing, respondent showed ignorance of this clear procedural rule. The Court adopted the OCA’s recommendation, imposing a FINE of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) with a warning. The other charges against respondent were not substantiated.