A.M. No. RTJ-00-1531 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 99-782-RTJ) - REYNALDO MAGAT,COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE GREGORIO G. PIMENTEL, JR., CLERK OF COURT AVELINO S. BUAN, SHERIFF FLORENCIO S. RAZON, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 50, GUAGUA, PAMPANGA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, let a Writ of Demolition issue commanding the Sheriff to cause the removal and/or demolition not only of the structures/improvements made and constructed by defendants-spouses Vicente and Virginia Magat but also the structures made and constructed by Joe and Maria Fe Magat, Reynaldo and Dominga Maninang and Tomas and Yoly Angeles which structures are adjacent and contiguous to that constructed by the defendants-spouses. On 27 July 1999, respondent Sheriff, with the assistance of several persons and armed men in uniform, demolished the houses pursuant to the writ of demolition. Among the houses affected were those of Jesus Tungcab and herein complainant Reynaldo Magat. In his administrative complaint, Reynaldo Magat averred that the demolition of his house constitutes grave misconduct, as well as grave abuse of discretion, on the part of respondents; he declared that - "1. His name was not listed in the Writ of Demolition issued by respondent Clerk of Court on July 26, 1999. His name was merely mistaken for that of Reynaldo Maninang. "2. Except for Mr. and Mrs. Vicente Magat, all the other persons whose houses were demolished were not parties to the unlawful detainer case, nor were they named defendants in the complaint filed by the plaintiffs. Neither did they receive any summons or court orders or processes. "3. The Order issued by respondent Judge on July 6, 1999, ordering the demolition of the additional houses pursuant to plaintiffs' `Ex Parte Motion to Specify the Structures/Improvements To be Demolished and For Ocular Inspection' is arbitrary and violative of the demolition victims' constitutional right to due process because they are strangers to the case." Respondents submitted their joint comment on the complaint, claiming that - "1. It is not true that the persons whose houses were demolished were not parties to the unlawful detainer case for, as early as April 4, 1996, when the case was filed, John Does and Peter Does, representing all persons claiming authority under the defendants Mr. and Mrs. Vicente Magat, were included in the complaint. As a matter of fact, the decision of the MTC, Sasmuan, Pampanga, explicitly ordered the defendants and all persons claiming authority under them to vacate the property. Also, the Order of respondent Judge dated March 10, 1999, granting the plaintiffs' 'Motion For Special Order For Demolition of Improvements' directed the defendants-spouses to remove and/or demolish the improvements made and constructed by them and their agents on the property subject of the case. "2. It is not true that complainant's name has been mistaken for that of Reynaldo Maninang. The mistake has been brought about by the inadvertent omission of some words when the `Ex Parte Motion to Specify the Structures/Improvements to be Demolished and For Ocular Inspection' was copied into the Order of the Court dated July 6, 1999 and the Writ of Execution dated July 26, 1999. While the Ex Parte Motion enumerated the persons