Villa vs. Ayco

A.M. No. RTJ-11-2284 (July 13, 2011)

Spouses accused officials of delays; Judge Ayco found guilty of misconduct; claims against Bartolome dismissed.

Facts:

The case involves a complaint filed by spouses Sur and Rita Villa and Leticia Gorembalem Valenzuela against Presiding Judge Roberto L. Ayco, Officer-in-Charge/Legal Researcher Virginia M. Bartolome, and Sheriff IV Crispin S. Calsenia, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Surallah, South Cotabato. The complaint arose from Civil Case No. 386-N, titled "Spouses Sixto and Yolanda Fernandez v. Spouses Miguel and Marina Gorembalem; Estate of Miguel Gorembalem, represented by Crispina G. Artienda, et al.," which was a case for specific performance with damages.

The complainants are the legal heirs of Miguel Gorembalem, who was the defendant in the civil case. The RTC ruled against Gorembalem on October 2, 1992, and the Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal on January 25, 2006. Consequently, the judgment became final and executory on March 19, 2006, leading to the issuance of a writ of execution by the RTC on August 4, 2006.

On August 25, 2006, Sheriff Calsenia issued a Notice of Levy on Gorembalem's property, which prompted the complainants to file a Third Party Claim on September 26, 2006. This claim was denied by the RTC on March 7, 2007. The complainants filed a motion for reconsideration, which Judge Ayco took fifteen months to deny, leading to allegations of gross inefficiency against him.

Subsequently, the complainants' notice of appeal was denied for being late, and their motion for reconsideration was also denied. On March 10, 2009, the plaintiffs in the civil case filed a motion for a writ of possession and demolition, which the complainants opposed. However, Judge Ayco ordered the issuance of the writ on April 30, 2009, and OIC Bartolome issued it on May 14, 2009, despite the complainants' claims that the motion violated the three-day notice rule.

Sheriff Calsenia executed the writ on July 25, 2009, without prior notice to vacate, resulting in damages to the complainants. The complainants alleged that Sheriff Calsenia failed to account for the materials taken from the property during the demolition. Additionally, OIC Bartolome was accused of displaying discourteous behavior towards the complainants' daughter when she sought court records.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether Judge Ayco committed undue delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration filed by the complainants.
  2. Whether OIC Bartolome acted with gross ignorance of the law and inefficiency in handling the pleadings and issuing the writ.
  3. Whether Sheriff Calsenia committed grave abuse of authority and gross neglect of duty in executing the writ of possession and demolition.

Arguments:

  • Complainants' Arguments:

    • Judge Ayco's delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration constituted gross inefficiency, violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and administrative circulars.
    • OIC Bartolome should not have accepted the motion for the writ of possession due to the absence of proper notice and displayed bias against the complainants.
    • Sheriff Calsenia failed to provide prior notice to vacate before executing the writ, leading to damages and loss of property.
  • Respondents' Arguments:

    • Judge Ayco admitted the delay but argued it was an isolated incident and attributed it to the heavy caseload of his court.
    • OIC Bartolome contended that her role was ministerial, and she acted in compliance with the court's order without assessing the propriety of the pleadings.
    • Sheriff Calsenia maintained that he followed his duties and that the property was already vacant at the time of demolition, denying any mishandling of the complainants' belongings.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Court found the complaint against OIC Bartolome to be without merit and dismissed it. The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that OIC Bartolome acted within her ministerial duties and that the complainants failed to substantiate claims of discourteous conduct.

Regarding Judge Ayco, the Court acknowledged the undue delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration, which violated the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that the public's confidence in the judiciary relies on timely resolutions of cases and motions. Consequently, Judge Ayco was admonished and warned that a repetition of similar acts would result in more severe penalties.

As for Sheriff Calsenia, the Court found him guilty of simple misconduct for failing to provide the required notice to vacate before executing the writ. The Court highlighted the importance of sheriffs adhering strictly to procedural rules to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. Sheriff Calsenia was suspended for three months without pay and warned that future violations would lead to harsher penalties.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. Judges must resolve motions within the reglementary period to avoid gross inefficiency, which can lead to administrative sanctions.
  2. Sheriffs are required to strictly comply with procedural rules, including providing notice before executing writs, to uphold justice and fair play.
  3. Administrative complaints against court personnel must be substantiated by substantial evidence to be considered valid.