A.M. No. MTJ-07-1680 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 07-1876-MTJ) - KATIPUNAN NG TINIG SA ADHIKAIN, INC. (KATIHAN) BY GODOFREDO S. BONGON, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE LUIS ZENON O. MACEREN, SHERIFF ANTOLIN ORTEGA CUIZON, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 39, QUEZON CITY.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, I prepared and sent a Notice to Vacate to the defendants in the said case on January 10, 2006. However, this was not implemented immediately as I was made to understand by the plaintiff that the defendants are being convinced to vacate voluntarily. A copy of the Notice to Vacate is attached hereto as Annex "2"; On June 28, 2006, upon the prodding of the plaintiff, I sent a Final Notice of Demolition to the defendants informing them of the implementation on July 04, 2006. A copy of the notice is attached as Annex "3"; x x x x (sic) The complainants claim that there was no special order of demolition, and thus I could not undertake the same. This is not true, my Notice to Vacate and Final Notice for Demolition were based on a Decision and a Writ of Execution that incorporates an undertaking to demolish structures of the defendants, as earlier mentioned. Under the circumstances, therefore, there was no need for me to ask for an Order of Demolition. The sole issue in this case is whether Judge Maceren and Sheriff Cuizon can be held administratively liable for the demolition of the structures of complainants ostensibly without due process of law, and for violation of the rules of procedure concerning the execution of judgments under Rule 39. The Court finds that Judge Maceren acted within the bounds of his authority when he merely noted the Verified Manifestation and Motion filed by PIA and KATIHAN in Civil Case No. 35076, as the movants were not parties to the ejectment case. They did not file any formal motion for intervention in the said case despite the opportunity to do so. As to the demolition of complainants' structures and improvements on the subject lots, as correctly observed by the Office of the Court Administrator, there is no concrete evidence that Judge Maceren acquiesced to or participated in Sheriff Cuizon's act of directing the demolition of the structures without proper authority from the court. However, Judge Maceren should have exercised considerable care and caution before approving the compromise agreement, knowing that a formal manifestation and motion was filed by persons who claimed that they would be adversely affected by the decision based on the compromise agreement. He should have directed all parties in interest to intervene in the case. Be that as it may, the lapse of judgment of Judge Maceren is not ample basis to hold him administratively liable, since his action of merely noting the Verified Manifestation and Motion is well within his judicial discretion. Conversely, Sheriff Cuizon is administratively liable for ordering the demolition of the structures on the subject property and for his issuance of the Final Notice of Demolition without authority from the court. Sheriff Cuizon exceeded his authority in issuing the Final Notice of Demolition. He issued the same without a special order of demolition from the court having jurisdiction over the ejectment case. It must be stressed that the preparation of wri