[A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2258-P. June 26, 2006]

SPOUSES FIDEL AND EMILIA ABAD v. CRISPIN O. NAVALTA, SHERIFF III, MTCC, BRANCH 1, ILIGAN CITY

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUNE 26, 2006

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2258-P (Spouses Fidel and Emilia Abad v. Crispin O. Navalta, Sheriff III, MTCC, Branch 1, Iligan City)

Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated April 18, 2006, to wit:

1) VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated 22 July 2005 filed by Sps. Fidel & Emilia Abad seeking the investigation and the imposition of an appropriate disciplinary action against Crispin O. Navalta, Sheriff III, MTCC, Branch 1, for demolishing their house without affording them the benefits under RA 7279 and EO 152 on humane demolition and resettlement.

Herein complaint stemmed from the implementation of the Writ of Demolition issued by Judge Anisah Amanodin-Umpa following the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 10344-AF (1-963). In said decision, only four (4) are named defendants [.] Sps. Abad immediately filed their Manifestation with Motion to Quash as they were not named party defendants in the said case. But before they could have their day in court, the demolition team headed by Sheriff Navalta successfully demolished their shanty.

2) COMMENT dated October 19, 2005 of Crispin Navalta praying that this complaint against him be dismissed. He avers that on December 9, 1996, he served the summons, orders and a copy of the complaint on the defendants Violeto Espina, Fidel Capuno, Evangelista Pates, Allen Cabahug, Semeon Mocorro and Mias Madaje in Civil Case No. 10344-AF (1-963) for ejectment and damages. At the time of the service, Sps. Fidel and Emilia Abad knew that there was a civil case filed as both spouses are agents of defendant Fidel Capuno who occupied the premises in question. On June 8, 2004, he served on defendant Fidel Capuno and his agents, Sps. Fidel and Emilia Abad, the copy of the Writ of Execution and Sheriff’s Notice to Vacate. On May 16, 2005, he served on defendant Fidel Capuno and his agents Sps. Fidel and Emilia Abad a copy of the Writ of Demolition/Sheriff’s Notice to Vacate, which they personally received and acknowledged as evidenced by their signature on the original copy of sheriff’s notice to vacate.

On July 21, 2005, the Writ of Demolition was enforced evicting the defendant Fidel Capuno and his agents, Sps. Fidel and Emilia Abad, from the premises in question.

On August 5, 2005, the court issued an Order stating that the Motion to Quash the Writ of Demolition was already moot and academic, considering that demolition had been conducted, and that the sheriff had already issued a certificate of placement to the plaintiff.

It can be gleaned from the records of the case that almost ten (10) years from December 9, 1996 when the service of summons, order, together with complaint up to July 21, 2005, at the time of the enforcement of judgment, Sps. Fidel and Emilia Abad knew that a civil case was filed against defendant Fidel Capuno for whom complainants are agents. It was only on July 19, 2005 that they filed an Entry of Appearance with Manifestation and Motion to Quash Writ of Demolition with respect to their house structure, which was two (2) days before the scheduled enforcement of the Writ of Demolition.

EVALUATION: It is evident that the complaint is lacking of merit. Respondent merely performed ministerial duties in implementing the writs issued by the court. There is no allegation which would show that respondent acted despotically or arbitrarily in the performance of his duties.

RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that this case be DISMISSED for lack of merit.[1]

We adopt the foregoing findings and recommendation of the OCA.

It must be stressed that the duty to execute a writ is mandatory and ministerial.[2] A sheriff’s duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial; the order of the court must be executed strictly to the letter, leaving the sheriff with no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not.[3] This is so because final judgments of the courts become empty victories for the prevailing parties if not immediately enforced.[4] In the instant case, respondent sheriff was merely performing his ministerial duty to implement the writ of demolition issued by the RTC.

Moreover, the burden of substantiating the charges in an administrative proceeding against court employees falls on the complainant,[5] who must be able to prove the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent regularly performed his or her duties will prevail.

Considering the foregoing, the instant administrative complaint against Crispin O. Navalta is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL

Clerk of Court

First Division

[2] Duenas v. Mandi, G.R. No. L-65889, June 30, 1987, 151 SCRA 530, 543.

[3] Sayson v. Luna, A.M. No. P-04-1829, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 502, 505.

[4] Mendoza v. Sheriff IV Tuquero, 412 Phil. 435, 442 (2001), citing Moya v. Bassig, 138 SCRA 49, 52-53 (1985).

[5] Cortes v. Agcaoili, 355 Phil. 848, 880 (1998), citing Lachica v. Flordeliza, 254 SCRA 278, 284 (1996).