OLYMPIA-GERONILLA v. MONTEMAYOR

Eleanor Olympia-Geronilla and Emma Olympia Gutierrez, represented by Atty. Beatriz O. Geronilla-Villegas Vs. Ricardo V. Montemayor, Jr. and Atty. Luningning Centron

A.M. No. P-17-3676 

June 5, 2017

FACTS 

Complainants alleged that they are the plaintiffs in an ejectment case entitled “Eleanor Olympia and Emma Olympia v. Carlito Aceveda and Tolentino Malinao” docketed as Civil Case No. 327 (ejectment case) filed before the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Province of Oriental Mindoro (MCTC).2 On October 29, 2004, Judge Edgardo M. Padilla (Judge Padilla) of the MCTC rendered a Decision3 in favor of complainants, directing defendants therein Carlito T. Aceveda (Aceveda), Tolentino Malinao (Malinao; defendants), and all persons claiming rights under them to: (a) vacate the property subject of the dispute; (b) remove whatever structures they may have erected thereon, at their own expense; (c) pay complainants P50,000.00 every four (4) months beginning November 2002 as reasonable compensation for the value of the crops being appropriated by defendants until they surrender possession to complainants; and (d) pay P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees and costs of suit.4 In view of the MCTC’s favorable decision, complainants filed a Motion for Immediate Execution thereof; on the other hand, defendants appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, Branch 40 (RTC). 

Meanwhile, on July 1, 2005, the MCTC issued a Writ of Execution6 directing the implementation of its October 29, 2004 Decision.7 Subsequently, in a Decision8 dated May 4, 2007, the RTC denied defendants’ appeal and affirmed the MCTC’s Decision in toto. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order9 dated May 28, 2007. 

Notwithstanding the RTC’s affirmance of the MCTC’s Decision and the issuance of a writ of execution, the judgment in favor of the complainants remained unsatisfied. Thus, they filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution, which the MCTC granted. An alias writ of execution was issued on July 29, 2010. Aceveda refused to vacate the premises despite the issuance of the alias writ of execution. Upon Sheriff Montemayor’s instruction, complainants filed a motion for the issuance of a Writ of Demolition, which the MCTC granted. On May 20, 2011, a Writ of Demolition was issued. From the issuance of the Writ of Demolition on May 20, 2011 to November 2011, complainants consistently and religiously coordinated with Sheriff Montemayor for the enforcement of the MCTC Decision. However, the latter informed them that he could not enforce the said writ upon the portion of the property occupied by Aceveda as the same was excluded from the scope of the judgment. Sheriff Montemayor declared that Aceveda was able to produce “believable” documents from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) tending to show his ownership over the portion of the land upon which he had constructed his house. 

Thus, Sheriff Montemayor advised complainants to conduct a resurvey to ascertain the boundaries of the property that should be included in the demolition. Complainants insisted that all issues pertaining to the subject property, particularly the portion being claimed by Aceveda, had already been settled in the ejectment case. As such, all that Sheriff Montemayor had to do was to enforce the judgment therein. Unfortunately, the latter refused to do so, prompting complainants to send a letter dated November 22, 2011 to Atty. Centron, informing her of Sheriff Montemayor’s unjustified refusal to perform his duty of implementing the MCTC Decision. In the letter, complainants mentioned Sheriff Montemayor’s receipt of the amount of P10,000.00 allegedly as operational expenses for the intended demolition. 

ISSUE

The sole issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not respondents Sheriff Montemayor and Atty. Centron should be held administratively liable, as recommended by the OCA. 

HELD

Engraved in jurisprudence is the rule that the sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial. Once the writ is placed in his or her hands, a sheriff is obligated to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter and with reasonable promptness, taking heed of the prescribed period required by the Rules.37 In this case, Sheriff Montemayor’s mandated task was to implement the MCTC’s Decision in favor of complainants. 

However, instead of doing so, he substituted his own judgment and acted on his own belief that a specific portion of the subject property should be excluded from the execution. He refused to demolish the house of defendant Aceveda and vehemently insisted that the subject property must first be resurveyed, unduly causing delay in the implementation of the MCTC Decision, to the prejudice of the prevailing parties, i.e., the complainants. Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference,44 a less grave offense punishable by suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense under Section 46 (D) of the RRACCS. 

However, the Court, in several cases,45 imposed the penalty of fine in lieu of suspension as an alternative penalty in order to prevent any undue adverse effect on public service which would ensue if work were otherwise left unattended by reason of respondent's suspension. Therefore, the Court imposes on Atty. Centron the penalty of fine in the amount of P10,000.00, with a stem warning that a repetition of the same or any similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

RULING 

WHEREFORE, respondent Ricardo V. Montemayor, Jr., Sheriff IV of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro is found GUILTY of dereliction of duty, grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. In view of his previous dismissal from the service, he is FINED in the amount of P40,000.00, to be deducted from the monetary value of his accumulated leave credits, if sufficient; otherwise, he is ordered to pay the said amount directly to the Court. Likewise, respondent Atty. Luningning Y. Centron, Clerk of Court VI of the same office is found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and FINED in the amount of P10,000.00 and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or any similar act shall be dealt with more severely.