ADELA REFORMINA, COMPLAINANT, VS. DEPUTY SHERIFF DOMINADOR ADRIANO OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH VIII, RESPONDENT.

 Filed with this Court is
the verified complaint of one Adela
Reformina against Dominador Adriano, Deputy Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court
of Manila, Branch VIII, charging the latter with grave abuse of authority.

The instant complaint
arose from Civil Case No. 85-30855, entitled “Guillermo Uy, Jr. v. Tan
Chong Hoo substituted by Adela
Reformina” for ejectment, which was decided in favor of the
plaintiff.  The decision was affirmed in
toto by
the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch VIII.

On October
15, 1985, Judge
Gonong issued an order granting a writ of ejectment execution pending appeal;

On the same date, October
15, 1985, a writ of execution was issued by then Clerk of Court, Atty. Cesar P.
Javier, commanding the Deputy Sheriff
of Branch 8, respondent Dominador Adriano, to carry out the writ of execution;

On the same day, October
15, 1985, at 4:20 p.m., the defendant through counsel, filed before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, an urgent motion for reconsideration and to
stay execution, duly verified and scheduled for hearing on October 31, 1985 at
8:30 a.m.;

On October 16, 1985,
early in the morning without the aforementioned motion for reconsideration
being resolved by Judge Gonong, respondent Deputy Sheriff Dominador Adriano
assisted by three (3) hired helpers
and policemen of the Western Police, Chinatown Detachment, immediately
proceeded to the premises in question to carry out the writ of execution.  At that time, even though he knew that the motion for reconsideration was
unresolved, and without giving the occupant a reasonable time to pack up her
personal belongings, respondent Deputy Sheriff carried out the execution by
moving out the personal
belongings of the said occupant, complainant Adela Reformina.  At that time, complainant Adela Reformina was
out and upon the latter’s arrival, she informed the respondent sheriff that her
lawyers were securing a restraining order from the appellate court and requested respondent to stop the eviction
process.  Respondent sheriff did not heed
the request.  At about 1:30 p.m. of October 16, 1985; a representative of complainant’s lawyer
requested the respondent sheriff to stop the execution because a restraining
order was already issued by the appellate court and was being typed, but still,
respondent sheriff did not oblige.  At 3:00 p.m. of the said date, a restraining order from
the Intermediate Appellate Court was served on the plaintiff. 
At that time, the respondent sheriff had turned over possession of the
premises to the plaintiff.

Respondent Deputy Sheriff explained in his Comment dated November
26,1985, that he enforced the writ of
ejectment execution at the insistence of the prevailing party’s lawyer because
there was no contrary order issued by Judge Gonong or any restraining order from the appellate
court.

It appears that respondent deputy sheriff acted precipitately in carrying out immediately the writ of
execution to restore possession of
the premises to the plaintiff. 
Respondent deputy sheriff acted with undue haste and enforced the writ
of execution on the same date he received it by taking out the belongings of
the complainant from the premises even though he knew that there was a pending
motion for reconsideration, and that the losing party was seeking a restraining order from the appellate
court.  In fact, a restraining order was
issued by the afternoon of the same day.

Under the Rules of Court, the immediate enforcement of a writ of
ejectment execution is carried out by
giving the defendant notice of such writ, and making a demand that defendant
comply therewith within a reasonable period, normally from three (3) to five
(5) days, and it is only after such
period that the sheriff enforces the writ by the bodily removal of the
defendant and his personal belongings.  In this case, the precipitate act of
the respondent sheriff in carrying
out the writ of ejectment execution rendered the motion for reconsideration
before the trial court and the petition for review filed with the Intermediate
Appellate Court moot and academic. 
Indeed, a temporary restraining order was issued by the appellate court
enjoining the respondent deputy sheriff from implementing the writ of execution
issued in Civil Case No. 85-30855, until further orders of the court.

Premises considered, the Court resolved to SUSPEND
respondent Deputy Sheriff Dominador Adriano from office for a period of six (6) months without pay, effective
from the date of receipt of resolution for having been found GUILTY of grave
misconduct in office.  Let a copy of this
resolution be spread on respondent’s personal records.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.