G.R. No.: A.M. No. MTJ-07-1680, November 28, 2008
Case Parties: KATIPUNAN NG TINIG SA ADHIKAIN, INC. (KATIHAN) by GODOFREDO S. BONGON, complainant, vs. JUDGE LUIS ZENON O. MACEREN and SHERIFF ANTOLIN ORTEGA CUIZON, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 39, Quezon City, respondents.

FACTS

Complainants were informal settlers on land owned by Carmen Lopez and later sold to Efrain Limsui. Limsui filed an ejectment case against two neighborhood associations, but complainants’ group was not named as a respondent. The MeTC rendered a Decision based on a Compromise Agreement where the defendant associations agreed to vacate voluntarily. Complainants filed a motion with the MeTC, stating they were also residents and risked eviction without due process, but the respondent judge merely noted it as they were not parties. The MeTC issued a Writ of Execution. Respondent Sheriff Cuizon issued a notice to vacate. Subsequently, without any court order, he issued a final notice of demolition. He also submitted his Sheriff’s Report almost eight months after the writ’s issuance. Complainants filed an administrative complaint, alleging they were ejected without due process and that the sheriff acted without authority.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Antolin Ortega Cuizon is administratively liable for: (1) issuing a final notice of demolition without a special court order, and (2) failing to submit periodic reports on the execution as required by the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, respondent sheriff is administratively liable. The Court modified its earlier Decision, reducing the penalty.
1. On the Unauthorized Demolition Notice: The sheriff exceeded his authority. Under Section 10(d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a sheriff is prohibited from destroying, demolishing, or removing improvements on a property subject to execution except upon a special order of the court. The writ of execution based on the compromise agreement was insufficient; a separate, specific order was required to authorize demolition. His act of issuing the final notice without this order was a violation.
2. On the Failure to Submit Periodic Reports: The sheriff violated Section 14, Rule 39, which mandates that if a judgment is not satisfied in full within 30 days of receiving the writ, the officer must report to the court and state the reasons, and continue to report every 30 days thereafter. His submission of the Sheriff’s Report almost eight months late, with an excuse about an assurance from counsel, constituted a failure to perform a mandatory duty essential for updating the court and ensuring speedy execution.
The sheriff’s actions constituted simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure to give attention to an expected task due to carelessness or indifference. Considering it was his first offense, the Court modified the penalty from a three-month suspension to a suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, with a stern warning. The administrative complaint against Judge Maceren was dismissed for lack of evidence of his participation in or acquiescence to the sheriff’s unauthorized acts.