Case Digest Legal Technique and Logic

Atty. Luansing
Bautista VS. Cruz, A.M. No. P – 12 – 3062, July 25, 2012
Subjects:
1. Plaintiffs (Posadas and Ramos) filed a Complaint of Ejectment with prayer of Writ of
Demolition and Damages against the defendants (Vallejos and Basconcillo)
2. MTC issued a writ of Execution, commanding the sheriff to implement and execute its
decision.
3. Sheriff Cruz, in this case, was appointed to execute the Writ of Execution issued by the
court. Bautista (complainant) contacted Sheriff Cruz to confirm whether the latter had
already received the Writ of Execution issued by the MTC. The Sheriff assured that
everything is in order and he will implement the writ because Bautista is set to leave the
country to go the Canada.
4. The issue arose when it caused so much delay in executing the writ of execution issued by
the court, that apparently the writ of execution could not be implemented after all because of the
circumstances that arose in this case, alleged by Bautista.
5. In return, Sheriff Cruz rebutted this allegation of Bautista and claimed that he had fully
implemented the writ of execution. as evidenced by complainant’s acknowledgement of the
certificate of Possession and by the Officer’s report. He even asserts that any interruption and
delay in the implementation of the writ was attributable to Bautista. Further, the issue of delay in
the implementation of the decision of the court has already been rendered moot and academic by
the full implementation of the writ.

6. ISSUE: W/N Sheriff Cruz, should be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, gross
inefficiency, misfeasance of duty, bias and partiality in the implementation of the Writ of
Execution.

7. Yes. Sheriff Cruz, is found guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of
official duties and was REPRIMANDED when he served the notice to vacate only on the
defendants and not their counsel and failed to continue implementing the writ and to submit a
periodic report on his efforts every 30 days

the rules of court states that service of pleadings or papers must be made on the counsel if a party
is already represented by one. It is a settled rule that notice to the client will only be binding and
effective if specifically ordered by the Court. Notice to the client and not to the counsel of record
is not notice within the meaning of the law

Respondent Sheriff failed to submit his report concerning his attempt to implement the writ of
execution. This allegation that he made no effort to submit his monthly report is backed up by
respondent sheriff’s own admission that he was constrained to shelve for a while the full
implementation of the writ of execution due to the absence of complainant. Since respondent
made no effort, during the intervening period, to implement the writ, it is safe to assume that no
monthly report was submitted by him during said period since there was nothing really to be
reported at all.

The rules of court provide that it is compulsory for the sheriff to execute and make a return on
the writ of execution within the period of 30 days.  Furthermore, the sheriff must submit periodic
reports on partially satisfied or unsatisfied writs, so that the court as well as the parties may be
 apprised of the actions carried out in relation thereto. As stated under the rules, the periodic
reporting must be done regularly and consistently every 30 days until the writ is returned fully
satisfied.

Facts: The plaintiffs (Posadas and Ramos) filed a complaint for Ejectment with prayer of Writ of Demolition
and Damages against the defendants (Vallejos and Basconcillo) in the MTC.
The plaintiffs alleged that they were the co – owners of the parcel of land situated Pangasinan which is on that
time were occupied by the defendants.
The MTC rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs ordering the defendants to surrender the possession of
the land to the plaintiffs and to refrain from building additional structures which would impede the passage of
light and view to the plaintiffs’ residence.
The defendants appealed to the RTC. The RTC rendered a decision sustaining the decision of the MTC. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision with some modification, that the subject property to be
surrendered by the respondents should be 3.42 square meters.
The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision. The decision became final and executory. Thus, the MTC issued
a writ of Execution, commanding the sheriff to implement and execute its decision.
Bautista (a complainant) alleged that he contacted respondent Sheriff Cruz to confirm whether the latter had
already received the Writ of Execution issued by the MTC. When the sheriff acknowledged receipt of the writ,
Bautista requested that the sheriff implement it right away, because Bautista was set to leave for Canada.
Further, complainant suggested that the Writ of Execution be satisfied by instead erecting a wall (temporary or
permanent) encompassing the property, since the MTC had not issued a writ of demolition. Respondent Sheriff
Cruz purportedly agreed to the proposal and noted that the plan would not be contrary to the Decision of the
court. Sheriff Cruz assured Bautista that he would put everything in order and implement the writ

This case causes so much delay in implementing the decision of the court, that apparently the writ of execution
could not be implemented after all because of the circumstances that arose in this case.

1. On the day the writ was supposed to be implemented, Sheriff Cruz allegedly told Bautista that a
surveyor was needed to measure the subject area inside the garage. Bautista thus engaged the
services of an engineer.

2. The metal door of the garage was locked and the defendants’ (Vallejos and Basconcillo) car was
parked inside.

3. Bautista discovered that the respondents served the Notice to Vacate only on the defendants and
not their counsel. This act had the effect of preventing the sheriff from executing the writ, which
Bautista inferred that the respondents may have been bribed by the defendants.

4. Bautista alleged also that Sheriff Cruz refused to recover the costs of suit which Bautista incurred
from this case, despite the warnings that Bautista would file an administrative charge against
Sheriff Cruz.

Bautista argued that a sheriff had the right to use all necessary and legal means, including reasonable force, to
be able to implement a writ, but Sheriff Cruz continued to refuse to implement the said writ (by employing the
services of a locksmith or use a bolt cutter to open the lock)
Sheriff Cruz refutes all the accusation against him. He claims that he has already fully implemented the writ, as
evidenced by complainant’s acknowledgement of the certificate of Possession and by the Officer’s report. He
even asserts that any interruption and delay in the implementation of the writ was attributable to Bautista.
Further, the issue of delay in the implementation of the decision of the court has already been rendered moot
and academic by the full implementation of the writ.

Further, Shreiff Cruz, alleges the following circumstances are the causes of delay

1. He recounts that Bautista at first insisted that there was no need to hire a surveyor, as the subject
lot was very small. Allegedly, it was only after he maintained that the services of a surveyor were
vital to accurately identify the 3.42-square-meter portion.

2. Bautista told him to just demolish the garage, as the latter was authorized to do so. Sheriff Cruz
then averred that, without a court order authorizing a demolition, he could not place complainant
in possession of the subject property. Complainant purportedly refused to listen and then just left
respondent, with the threat of filing a case against the latter.

3. Sheriff Cruz further asserts that he did not violate any rule when he issued the Notice to Vacate.
He explains that he sent the notice to defendants in order for them to peaceably vacate the
premises and to avoid a forced eviction therefrom. He maintains that the service thereof on the
defendants was not invalid, and that the "notice to counsel rule" is inapplicable.

ISSUE: W/N Sheriff Cruz, should be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, gross inefficiency,
misfeasance of duty (wrongful exercise of lawful authority), bias and partiality in the implementation of
the Writ of Execution.

HELD:

1. First Issue: With Respect to alleged Bribery, that the Sheriff received monetary consideration from the
defendants.

 The alleged bribery is unsupported by any convincing evidence. Hence, this charge must be
dismissed. The fact that respondent sheriff declared in his Report that he had met the defendants
more than once could not be considered even as a speck of evidence to prove that he had been
bribed by the defendants.

2. Second Issue: Delay in the implementation of the Writ of Execution

 Since Bautista failed to establish that Sheriff Cruz received any bribe from the defendants in
order to prevent the implementation of the Writ of Execution, there is no basis to hold him liable
for his initial refusal to proceed with the implementation of the writ, absent a special order of
demolition.

The Rules of Court is very clear on this matter (Rule 39) that when the property subject of the
execution contains improvements constructed by a person the Sheriff or the officer shall not
destroy, said improvements except upon special order of the court

In the case at bar, it is undisputed that a garage was installed on the subject lot covered by the
MTC’s Decision, as modified by the CA. Since Bautista did not present evidence to show that he
had obtained a special order of demolition from the court, the sheriff was then under obligation
not to destroy said improvement. Sheriff Cruz, thus, acted consistently with the Rules of Court
 when he refused to demolish the garage and to just wait for the issuance of a special order of
demolition before proceeding with the full implementation of the Writ of Execution.

2. Third Issue: Refusal of the Sheriff to recover the cost of suit for the Complainant Bautista’s incurred
expenses
 In this case, it was shown that only the MTC and the RTC ordered the payment of costs of
suit by the defendants. The Court of Appeals was silent as to the costs of suit incurred by
Bautista as a result of appeal.
 As to the costs sustained by Bautista following his appeal, the rules of court provide that costs
shall be allowed to the prevailing party as a matter of course, but the court shall have power, for
special reasons, to adjudge that either party shall pay the costs of an action, or that the same be
divided, as may be equitable. Since it was complainant Bautista who filed the petitions before the
CA and the SC, and both petitions were either dismissed or denied, it is important that he prove
that courts have adjudged that the defendants shall pay the costs of the appeal. Contrary to the
allegations of complainant, the plaintiffs were not the prevailing parties in the CA or the SC
judgment. Consequently, absent any proof that the plaintiffs are entitled to the costs of suit
before the CA and the SC, we find that the sheriff cannot be held liable for refusing to recover
these expenses from the defendants in the ejectment case.
3. Fourth issue: Whether or not the sheriff committed an error when he served the notice to vacate only on the
defendants and not their counsel.
 The sheriff committed an error when he served the notice to vacate only on the defendants and
not their counsel. The rules of court provide that if any party has appeared by counsel, service
upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is
ordered by the court. Further, the rules of court states that service of pleadings or papers must be
made on the counsel if a party is already represented by one. It is a settled rule that notice to the
client will only be binding and effective if specifically ordered by the Court. Notice to the client
and not to the counsel of record is not notice within the meaning of the law
4. Fifth Issue: allegation that respondent failed to continue implementing the writ and to submit a periodic
report on his efforts every 30 days
 Respondents sheriff made no positive assertion to disprove the claim of Bautista. Respondent
Sheriff failed to submit his report concerning his attempt to implement the writ of execution.
This allegation that he made no effort to submit his monthly report is backed up by respondent
sheriff’s own admission that he was constrained to shelve for a while the full implementation of
the writ of execution due to the absence of complainant. Since respondent made no effort, during
the intervening period, to implement the writ, it is safe to assume that no monthly report was
submitted by him during said period since there was nothing really to be reported at all.

The rules of court provide that it is compulsory for the sheriff to execute and make a return on
the writ of execution within the period of 30 days.  Furthermore, the sheriff must submit periodic
reports on partially satisfied or unsatisfied writs, so that the court as well as the parties may be
apprised of the actions carried out in relation thereto. As stated under the rules, the periodic
reporting must be done regularly and consistently every 30 days until the writ is returned fully
satisfied.
Hence, respondent sheriff is liable for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his official duties.
Under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, inefficiency and incompetence
in the performance of official duties is considered a grave offense with a corresponding penalty of suspension.
However, the Supreme Court viewed the sheriff’s acts as not so grave as to merit suspension, instead the sheriff
was only reprimanded for his failure to send the notice to vacate to the counsel of defendants and to submit
periodic reports to the court on the status of the implementation of the writ of execution.
WHEREFORE, respondent sheriff Marking G. Cruz is found guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in the
performance of official duties and is hereby REPRIMANDED, with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the
same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.