GR L 47363; (October, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47363 October 28, 1982
FRANCISCO A. FUENTES, JOHNNY DAYANG and SILVERIO DELA TORRE, petitioners, vs. JUDGE OSCAR LEVISTE, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Capiz, Branch II, and CIRILO BACANTO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Francisco Fuentes obtained a final judgment in an unlawful detainer case against Emilio Bacanto. After execution, the levied properties were sold to Fuentes. Upon expiration of the redemption period, a final deed of sale was issued. The sheriff attempted to deliver physical possession to Fuentes but was refused by Emilio Bacanto, his relatives including respondent Cirilo Bacanto, and a lessee. Consequently, Fuentes and his overseers filed a special civil action for contempt against them before the Court of First Instance, alleging their refusal constituted defiance of court processes and criminal contempt.
The trial court declared the defendants, except one, in default for non-appearance at pre-trial. Respondent Cirilo Bacanto later filed a motion to quash/dismiss the contempt complaint. The respondent judge granted the motion and dismissed the complaint against Bacanto, reasoning that the court had not acquired jurisdiction over him in the original ejectment case and that the complaint failed to allege actual ejectment was effected by authorities before his refusal.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge correctly dismissed the complaint for contempt against Cirilo Bacanto.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court sustained the dismissal, albeit on different legal grounds. The Court clarified that the lower court erroneously based its dismissal on lack of jurisdiction over Bacanto’s person in the contempt proceeding, where he was duly summoned. However, the dismissal was ultimately correct because the petitioners pursued an improper remedy. A refusal to obey a writ of execution in an ejectment case does not, by itself, constitute contempt of court. The sheriff is tasked to physically oust the defeated party and place the winning party in possession. If improvements need removal, the plaintiff must apply for a special demolition order under Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, after notice and hearing, granting the judgment debtor a reasonable time to remove the improvements. The proper recourse was not a contempt charge but a petition for such a special order. Therefore, the petition was dismissed to avoid an unnecessary remand for proceedings based on an incorrect remedy.