G.R. No. 134141 ; August 13, 2002
LEODY MANUEL, petitioner, vs. JOSE and DAISY ESCALANTE, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Daisy Escalante was the lessee of a room in a house owned by Triumfo Garces. On August 13, 1984, Garces filed an unlawful detainer case against her for expiration of the lease and subleasing. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of Garces, ordering Escalante to vacate. Escalante filed a Notice of Appeal but failed to pay the appeal fee. Garces moved for execution, which was granted. On October 2, 1985, petitioner Leody Manuel, a Supervising Sheriff, served the writ of execution on respondents Daisy and Jose Escalante and demanded they vacate immediately. Respondents pleaded for time to consult a lawyer and file a motion to stay execution. Petitioner agreed only to defer until 10:00 a.m. that same day. Respondents engaged new counsel who filed an Urgent Motion, but Garces refused further deferment. Petitioner, with laborers, then hauled respondents’ belongings out of the room and dumped them on the sidewalk. By noon, possession was turned over to Garces. A heavy downpour later soaked respondents’ belongings. The MTC denied the Urgent Motion due to failure to perfect the appeal. Respondents demanded damages from Garces and petitioner, and when refused, filed a complaint for damages. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal as to petitioner Manuel, holding him liable for damages for failing to follow the “usual procedure” of giving notice and a reasonable time to vacate before enforcement, awarding moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees to Daisy Escalante. Petitioner sought review, arguing the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (requiring a 3-day notice to vacate) should not be retroactively applied.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner sheriff Leody Manuel is liable for damages for the manner in which he enforced the writ of execution in the ejectment case.

RULING

Yes, the petitioner is liable. The Court of Appeals decision is affirmed. The liability is not based on the retroactive application of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure but on the doctrine established under the 1964 Rules and basic principles of justice and fair play. The “usual procedure” requires that in enforcing a writ of execution for ejectment, the sheriff must give the defendant notice of the writ and a reasonable period, normally three to five days, to comply peaceably before bodily removal. This doctrine, articulated in Reformina v. Adriano and City of Manila v. Court of Appeals, is rooted in Article 19 of the Civil Code, which mandates that every person must act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. In this case, petitioner served the writ and enforced it on the same day, without prior notice, denying respondents a reasonable opportunity to secure their belongings or verify the writ’s validity. This arbitrary conduct warrants the award of damages. The Court found the appellate court’s award of P20,000.00 as moral damages, P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees to respondent Daisy Escalante to be reasonable and supported by evidence.