MARGARITA AMOR, SOFRONIO TOLIN, AILEEN MINA, MARINA MENDOZA, JOCELYN LAUDE, CORAZON SANTOS, ANITA COMPANERO, VILMA SORIENTE, LEONARDA CALUGAY, CHITO BAGADIONG, ELIZABETH BARAS, AND JOCELYN BANAS, RESIDENTS OF RUHAT IV, BARANGAY MAYAMOT, MARCOS HIGHWAY, ANTIPOLO CITY, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ISAIAS E. LEYV

Ruling

Accordingly, in his memorandum [2] dated October 18, 2001, the Court Administrator recommended to the Court the following: The charges against Judge Felix S. Caballes, Branch Clerk of Court Cesar Villamor be DISMISSED for lack of merit; Deputy Sheriff Isaias E. Leyva be held liable for Misconduct and be penalized to pay a FINE of P10,000.00 with a WARNING that repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely; and OCA IPI No. 99-643-P be CANCELLED in the docket and OCA IPI No. 99-753-RTJ be CONSIDERED as the official docket number of the administrative case. [3] In its December 10, 2001 resolution, [4] the Court adopted the foregoing recommendations and required the parties to manifest whether they are willing to submit the case on the basis of the pleadings already filed. While the complainants manifested their willingness, respondent, for his part, filed a supplemental comment. Record on hand readily reveals that the writ of demolition [5] issued on January 28, 1999 by the Branch Clerk of Court in Civil Case No. 95-3724 commanded respondent, as follows: NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to demolish and/or cause the demolition of such structures that maybe found unlawfully constructed within the questioned premises, and to cause the eviction of herein defendants and any or all persons claiming rights or under their authority, and to place plaintiff thereof, employing such degree of persuasion as maybe reasonable and necessary to effect the same, subject to such rules of procedure as mandated by laws obtaining in such circumstances. Complainants allege that on May 12, 1999, respondent deprived them of their properties without due process when he caused the demolition of their houses and structures although they were not among the defendants in Civil Case No. 95-3724, nor do they claim any right under any of the defendants therein. According to complainants, the decision in that case was solely against a certain Annie Jimenez. They further alleged that their names were not among those mentioned in the Notice to Vacate and Leave Premises Upon the Writ of Demolition [6] issued by the respondent Deputy Sheriff on January 29, 1999. As for the charge of oppression, complainants claim that respondent implemented the writ of demolition in a tyrannical, cruel and high-handed manner. In his COMMENT [7] dated August 5, 1999, respondent claimed that herein complainants had earlier filed a joint affidavit-complaint with the Ombudsman involving the same charges. Said affidavit was indorsed to the OCA which docketed it as OCA IPI No. 99-643-P. Relative thereto, respondent filed a comment [8] dated July 19, 1999, which he is now adopting. In said comment, respondent averred that a motion to exclude the houses or structures of complainants from demolition was filed in Civil Case No. 95-3724 but the same was denied by the trial court in its Order [9] of April 26, 1999. Complainants also filed a petition for prohibition before the Co