0% found this document useful (0 votes)
86 views2 pages

Momongan v. Omipon, AM No. MTJ-93-974 March PDF

1) A judge issued writs of demolition ordering the demolition of a complainant's house, despite appellate courts having previously determined only half the house encroached on another's property. 2) The Supreme Court found the judge grossly abused his authority in issuing the demolition writs, as appellate courts had already delineated the property boundaries. 3) The Court dismissed a related complaint against a clerk of court, finding the clerk implemented a demolition order before receiving a restraining order. The judge was fined for violating the appellate court rulings.

Uploaded by

Bea Baloyo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
86 views2 pages

Momongan v. Omipon, AM No. MTJ-93-974 March PDF

1) A judge issued writs of demolition ordering the demolition of a complainant's house, despite appellate courts having previously determined only half the house encroached on another's property. 2) The Supreme Court found the judge grossly abused his authority in issuing the demolition writs, as appellate courts had already delineated the property boundaries. 3) The Court dismissed a related complaint against a clerk of court, finding the clerk implemented a demolition order before receiving a restraining order. The judge was fined for violating the appellate court rulings.

Uploaded by

Bea Baloyo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Republic of the Philippines half (1/2) portion of complainant's residential house found to be built inside

SUPREME COURT the titled property of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the decision on appeal was
Manila affirmed by the same Regional Trial Court and the records of the case were
remanded to respondent's sala for execution of the judgment. On November
THIRD DIVISION 25, 1991, respondent Judge issued a writ ordering the demolition of the
remaining half portion of complainant's residential house found standing on
a public property (legal easement). Complainant filed a motion for
reconsideration of the demolition order but the same was denied on
December 5, 1991.
A.M. No. MTJ-93-853 March 14, 1995
It further appears that on August 19, 1992, a second writ of demolition was
DOMINGO BALANTES, complainant, issued by the respondent Judge, followed by a third one dated February 3,
vs. 1993.
JUDGE JULIAN OCAMPO III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch
I, Naga City, respondent.
Complainant now alleges that respondent judge issued the orders granting
plaintiff's motion for issuance of writ of demolition with precipitate haste,
A.M. No. P-94-1013 March 14, 1995 hence, he was deprived of his right to oppose the same, that the effect of
these writs of demolition is to demolish complainant's entire house,
DOMINGO BALANTES, complainant, notwithstanding that the appellate court's3 writ of execution and demolition
vs. issued pending appeal ordered the demolition only of the half portion of his
LILIA S. BUENA, Clerk of Court, MTCC, Naga City/ Ex-officio Naga house found standing on plaintiff's land.
City Sheriff, respondent.
Respondent Judge Julian Ocampo III filed his comment on November 25,
RESOLUTION 1993 (A.M. No. MTJ-93-853, pp. 30-34). He explained that after a series of
appeals (to RTC, Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court), and the remand
of records to court a quo, he issued the questioned writs of demolition with
respect to the remaining portion of complainant's house situated inside the
property which court a quo found to be owned by the plaintiff by right of
ROMERO, J.: accretion.

This resolution disposes of two related complaints of Domingo Balantes, one Respondent Judge argues that a writ of demolition, being merely incidental
of which is against respondent Judge Julian Ocampo III (A.M. No. MTJ- to the execution of a final judgment, is immediately enforceable after
93-853) 1 and the other against Clerk of Court Lilia S. Buena (A.M. No. P-94- hearing the arguments of both parties; that though the writ of demolition
1013). 2 was issued on the same day the court issued its order of August 19, 1992,
the writ was implemented only on September 2, 1992; that a motion for
Records show that complainant is the defendant in an ejectment case (Civil reconsideration was filed by herein complainant on August 29, 1992 to
Case No. 8339) filed by plaintiff Roberto Roco but which was decided by forestall its implementation but the same was submitted for the court's
respondent judge against complainant. Complainant appealed the adverse consideration only on September 3, 1992 and by that time the writ had
decision to the RTC, Branch 23, Naga City (docketed as RTC 88-1467). On already been implemented.
motion of the plaintiff-appellee, the RTC, on October 23, 1989 issued a Writ
of Execution and Demolition pending appeal, ordering the removal of one-
Respondent Judge further argues that the restraining order issued on enjoined respondent Judge from issuing any further writs of demolition in
September 2, 1992 cannot be complied with because by the time it was Civil Case No. 8339.
received by the City Sheriff, the writ of demolition had already been effected
and the premises delivered to the plaintiff. Despite this directive, respondent Judge exhibited a defiant attitude by
issuing another writ of demolition dated August 19, 1992. Said order was
With respect to the complaint filed against respondent Clerk of Court, the subject of another petition for certiorari/prohibition (SPL. Civil Action No.
complainant alleges that she immediately proceeded to implement the writs 92-2651) wherein Judge Antonio N. Gerona of Branch 27, RTC, Naga City
of demolition without giving him a chance to move for a reconsideration of issued an order dated September 2, 1992 restraining the implementation of
the order granting issuance thereof. the aforesaid writ of demolition by the sheriff of MTC, Naga City.

We find respondent judge to have grossly abused his authority in issuing the As regards the charge against respondent Clerk of Court and Ex-
questioned writs of demolition. Officio Sheriff Lilia S. Buena, the same is dismissed, it appearing from the
certification she issued that the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the
A precise determination of the total land area encroached upon by RTC, Branch 27, Naga City was received by her on September 2, 1992 at
complainant over subject property in Civil Case No. 8339 has been ordered 2:15 p.m., after the demolition had been completely effected and the
by Judge Gregorio Manio, RTC, Branch 23, Naga City in the course of the premises delivered to the plaintiff at 1:30 p.m. of same date. It appears that
appeal thereof. Records show that previous to the issuance of the writ of respondent Buena was not aware of the existing TRO which she received
execution and demolition pending appeal, said judge ordered the deputy within the hour after the demolition had taken place, thus rendering said
sheriff with the assistance of a geodetic engineer to determine the metes restraining order a fait accompli. The rule is that when a writ is placed in the
and bounds of the plaintiff's property. The Sheriff's Return clearly showed hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of instructions, to proceed
that two (2) meters of plaintiff's property had been more or less encroached with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its
upon by complainant's house while it occupied three (3) meters, more or mandate. He may not apply his discretion as to whether to execute it or
less, of the legal easement formed by accretion. The writ of demolition thus not.4
issued by the appellate court contained specifications in accordance with
such findings and was returned fully satisfied on January 20, 1990. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Judge Julian Ocampo III,
Moreover, the decision of the RTC, Branch 23, Naga City which incorporated MTCC, Branch I, Naga City is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of P5,000.00
such findings was successively affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar infraction in the
Supreme Court. future will merit a stiffer penalty. The complaint against respondent Clerk of
Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff Lilia S. Buena is hereby DISMISSED.
Respondent Judge, therefore, was fully aware of the previous delineation of
the property of the plaintiff. Nevertheless, when the records were remanded SO ORDERED.
to him and upon motion of the plaintiff's counsel, he issued another writ of
demolition which sought to demolish the remaining portion of the Feliciano, Melo, Vitug and Francisco, JJ., concur.
defendant's house which, as already found by the appellate court(s), was
standing upon a public property.

The order of demolition dated November 20, 1991 which he issued, in fact,
was the subject of a petition for certiorari (SPL. Civil Action No. RTC 91-
2467) before the same RTC, Branch 23, Naga City where Judge Gregorio A.
Manio declared said order of demolition and the writ issued pursuant thereto
as null and void, having been issued with grave abuse of discretion and

You might also like