A.M. No. P-99-1337 - TERESA T. GONZALES LA'O & CO., INC., THRU COUNSEL JOSE P. O. ALILING IV, COMPLAINANT, VS. SHERIFF JADI T. HATAB.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, on August 7, 1997, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction [4] and on August 8, 1997, a notice to vacate, [5] duly served upon defendant Vicente. However, the latter refused to surrender possession of the premises. This prompted the complainant to file an urgent motion for execution pending appeal with the Regional Trial Court which granted the motion in an order [6] dated September 1, 1997, the decretal portion of which reads: "Premises considered and finding the motion for execution to be meritorious and in order, the same is granted. Let the corresponding writ of execution in accordance with the decision of this Court, affirming in toto the decision of the trial court, in favor of the plaintiff-appellee be issued." Notwithstanding the September 1, 1997 order and despite repeated follow-ups made by complainant for about one (1) month after the Regional Trial Court had rendered its August 4, 1997 decision, respondent failed to execute the judgment, thus prompting the complainant to file an administrative complaint against respondent. On August 14, 1997, the defendant Vicente filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing the September 1, 1997 order of the Regional Trial Court. On October 9, 1997, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. In his defense, respondent claims that he held in abeyance the execution of the Regional Trial Court's judgment (1) upon learning of the pendency of an urgent motion to reconsider, the September 1, 1997 order of the Regional Trial Court (granting complainant's motion for execution pending appeal) and (2) by reason of the re-raffle of the case after Judge Lucia Violago Isnani inhibited herself from further acting thereon. This Court agrees with the Office of the Court Administrator's recommendation that respondent sheriff be held administratively liable for delaying without valid reason the execution of the decision of the regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 97-1067. Section 21, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides: "Sec. 21. Immediate execution on appeal to Court of Appeals, or Supreme Court-The judgment of the Regional Trial Court against the defendant shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom." Unlike Rule 70 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court where the defendant, after perfecting his appeal, could prevent the immediate execution of the judgment by taking an appeal and making a periodic deposit of monthly rentals during the pendency of the appeal thereby preventing the plaintiff from taking possession of the premises in the meantime, the present wording of Section 21, Rule 70 explicitly provides that the judgment of the regional trial court in ejectment cases appealed to it shall be immediately executory and can be enforced despite the perfection of an appeal to a higher court. Consequently, respondent's claim that the pendency of defendant Vicente