A.M. NO. P-05-2073 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 05-2144-P) - RUTH A. COLLADO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ADONIS L. SEVIDAL, SHERIFF IV, RTC, BR. 44, DAGUPAN CITY.RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, let a writ of possession issue in favor of the Philippine National Bank and the mortgagors Rufino Austria and Estela Austria and all persons claiming rights under them and those acting under their direction and control are ordered to vacate the premises identified as Lot 3544 situated in Dagupan City, covered by and embraced by TCT No. 69390 of the Register of Deeds of Dagupan City. [5] Respondent Sheriff served the writ of possession on the occupants of the lot. All except one failed to vacate. Thus, upon PNB's motion, the trial court ordered the issuance of a writ of demolition. The Clerk of Court then issued the writ commanding respondent "to remove and demolish all structures and any other improvements found [on said lot]." [6] On November 9, 2004, respondent served the writ of demolition on the remaining occupants of Lot No. 3544. On November 16, 2004, respondent arrived at the premises with 20 men. To aid in the execution, PNB caused a relocation survey to be conducted to ascertain the boundaries of the property. It was discovered that a portion of the concrete fence of complainant, who owned an adjoining lot, as well as a portion of her brother's house, encroached on Lot No. 3544. Respondent then demolished those structures found on Lot No. 3544, over the objections of complainant who insisted that the lot on which her fence and her brother's house stood were still part of her own lot, Lot No. 3557. Complainant now claims that respondent exceeded and violated his authority by maliciously and unlawfully causing the demolition of her concrete fence that was allegedly well within her own lot. She also claims that respondent destroyed and ransacked her brother's house, which was likewise within her lot, and coerced him to leave under threat that otherwise "something bad would happen to him." She stresses that neither she nor her brother were parties in S.P. No. 2003-0132-D and laments the denial to them of due process. In his comment, filed upon order of the Office of the Court Administrator, respondent maintains that he properly executed the writ of demolition. He avers that he merely implemented the writ of demolition which commanded him "to remove and demolish all structures and any other improvements found [on Lot No. 3544]." Thus, it was his duty to demolish a part of complainant's fence because it encroached on said lot. He further denies ever touching the house of complainant's brother, much less ransacking it, and asserts that he never threatened anybody. He also denies that complainant was denied due process. He points out that complainant's children, who were actual occupants of her property, filed a motion to intervene in S.P. No. 2003-0132-D and then actually intervened in said proceedings. [7] In a memorandum dated August 2, 2005, then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., found respondent liable and recommended to this Court that a fine of P 5,000 be imposed on him. [8] We find no reason to disagree with said