EMMANUEL RAMOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. JOSELITO SD. GENEROSO, JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 34, AND MR. JESUS T. FRANCO, JR., DEPUTY SHERIFF, METROPOLITAN …

Respondents are charged with violation of Articles 204, 205, 206
and 207 of the Revised Penal Code, grave abuse of authority and serious
misconduct for allegedly erroneously applying the rules on summary procedure
and rendering an unjust judgment in Civil Case No. 2944 of the Metropolitan
Trial Court, Branch 34 of Quezon City (“Spouses Angeles A. Arañez and
Corazon C. Arañez vs. Spouses Emmanuel Ramos and Mercedes Ramos”), an
action for ejectment and collection of unpaid rentals.

The plaintiffs in the case (the Arañez spouses) are the owners of
a building and lot located at 411 Boni Serrano, Murphy, Quezon City and a
two-door apartment situated at No. 2, 11th Avenue, Murphy, Quezon City, which
they had leased to the Ramos spouses. The defendants violated the terms and conditions of the leases by
defaulting in the payment of the monthly rentals, as well as the telephone and
water bills. The lessors, after failing
to reach a settlement at the barangay level, filed Civil Case No. 2944 to eject
the Ramoses from the two premises, and to recover the rental arrearages, unpaid
water bills and electric charges in the total sum of P26,633.20 plus attorney’s
fees of P5,000.00.

Summons was served upon the defendants requiring them to answer
the complaint. The Rule on Summary
Procedure was erroneously applied to the case. After trial, the Metropolitan Trial Court rendered a decision on June 7,
1991, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of all the
foregoing, this Court finds in favor of plaintiffs, and against defendant
Emmanuel Ramos. The crossclaim filed by
defendant Emmanuel Ramos against defendant Mercedes Ramos is hereby dismissed
for lack of merit. Defendant Emmanuel
Ramos and all persons claiming rights under him is hereby ordered:

“1. To vacate
and surrender the premises to plaintiffs of the ground floor of the building
located at No. 411 Boni Serrano Street, Quezon City;

“2. To vacate
and surrender to the plaintiffs the premises of the two door apartment located
at No. 2 11th Ave., Murphy, Quezon City;

“3. To pay his rental arrearages as follows:

“a) P6,000.00 per month
for the ground floor of the premises at the given address;

“b) P3,500.00 per
month for the 2-door apartment at the above given address counted from February
1990 until the above premises are finally vacated;

“4. To pay all
unpaid water, electric and telephone bills from February 10, 1990 until the
above premises are finally vacated;

“5. To pay P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

“6. To pay cost of suit.” (pp. 23­-24, Rollo.)

Ramos filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision. On July 18, 1991, Judge Generoso denied the
motion for reconsideration “for being a prohibited pleading under the
Rules on Summary Procedure.” (p. 22, Rollo). He further ruled that his decision had become final and executory
for failure of the defendant to appeal within the reglementary period. He issued a writ of execution on the same
day.

Assailing Judge Generoso’s ruling, Ramos filed on July 24, 1991,
a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction in the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 106 (Special Civil Action No.
Q91-9543). To maintain the status
quo, the regional trial court issued on July 25, 1991 a temporary
restraining order enjoining the Quezon City sheriff from enforcing the writ of
execution.

On July 26, 1991, within the reglementary period for appeal,
Ramos filed a notice of appeal from the decision of the Metropolitan Trial
Court on the grounds of: (1) grave
error of facts and law, and (2) confusing Summary Judgment (Sec. 3, Rule 34 of
the Rules of Court) with Summary Procedure. He alleged that his right to appeal was not lost (by his filing a motion
for reconsideration) because the total claim of the plaintiffs for damages and
rentals exceeded the P20,000.00-limit of the Metropolitan Trial Court’s
jurisdiction at the time of filing the complaint, hence, the Rule on Summary
Procedure was inapplicable to the case. His motion for reconsideration of the judgment was a proper pleading
which suspended the finality of the decision of the trial court, despite the
temporary restraining order issued by the Regional Trial Court on July 25,
1991. However, according to respondent
Judge, the appeal was not perfected because appellant (herein complainant)
failed to pay the appeal docket fee.

Deputy Sheriff Jesus T. Franco, Jr. enforced on August 23, 1991,
the writ of execution issued on July 18, 1991 by respondent Metropolitan Trial
Court Judge Generoso. The possession of
the premises in question was delivered to the Arañez spouses on the same day. Nevertheless, shortly thereafter, Ramos forced
open the locked doors of the apartment units at No. 2, 11th Avenue, Murphy,
Quezon City, and the ground floor of the building at 411 Boni Serrano Street
and re-occupied both premises, in total disregard of the writ of execution. Plaintiffs immediately filed a motion to
cite Ramos for contempt of court.

On October 8, 1991, Ramos filed this administrative complaint
against Judge Generoso and his deputy sheriff, Jesus Franco, Jr. On October 25, 1991, he also filed an urgent
motion for an order of preventive suspension and/or restraining order against
them, to enjoin them from further exercising jurisdiction “and adjudicative
powers over Civil Case No. 2944,” because the respondents lost
jurisdiction when he appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court. Ramos claims that Judge Generoso’s ruling
that his decision had become final and executory was “contrary to
applicable rules” (p. 43, Rollo) because he (Ramos) had already perfected
an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on July 26, 1991.

On March 24, 1992, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 106, granted Ramos’ petition for certiorari, prohibition and
injunction. It set aside Judge
Generoso’s Order of July 18, 1991, and directed him to resolve the motion for
reconsideration in accordance with regular rules, which respondent Judge
complied with. On April 24, 1992, he
denied Ramos’ motion for reconsideration. On May 9, 1992, the appeal period having expired, the judgment became
final and executory.

After deliberating on the administrative complaint against Judge
Generoso and Deputy Sheriff Franco and the respondents’ answer thereto, the
Court finds that while respondent Judge may not be accused of having knowingly
rendered an unjust judgment in the ejectment case, his issuance of a writ of
execution on July 18, 1991 was improper because he labored under the erroneous
belief that the case was subject to the Rule on Summary Procedure and that his
decision had become final because Ramos’ motion for reconsideration did not
suspend its finality. Still his error
in applying the Rule on Summary Procedure in the case, did not constitute
serious misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. He simply failed to exercise due care to ascertain the applicable
rule of procedure in the case before he set the adjudicative process in
motion. He was careless in failing to
notice that the summons he issued in the case did not indicate that the Rule on
Summary Procedure would be applied. His
mistake in applying the Rule on Summary Procedure led to his error in declaring
his decision final and in issuing an order for its execution on July 18,
1991. That error did not constitute a
grave abuse of authority or defiance of the Regional Trial Court for when he
issued the order of execution, the Regional Trial Court had not yet issued a
temporary restraining order in the certiorari case (Civil Case No.
Q-91-9543). He could not possibly have
disobeyed the temporary restraining order of the Regional Trial Court for it
was issued on July 25, 1991 only, or seven (7) days after he had issued
the order of execution in the ejectment case. (Ella vs. Salonga, 35 SCRA 86.)

The case against respondent Deputy Sheriff Jesus T. Franco, Jr.
is different. Respondent sheriff went
ahead with the execution of the decision in the ejectment case on August 23,
1991 despite the Regional Trial Court’s restraining order which was explicitly
addressed to him. However, his action
is in a way excusable for the Regional Trial Court’s Order was carelessly
prepared thus:

“Considering that it will take time before the matter could be
heard on notice, so as not to render the action moot and academic, and in order
to maintain the status quo, let a temporary restraining order issue for twenty
(20) days, enjoining the City Sheriff of Quezon
City Jesus T. Franco, Jr. to enforce
the writ of execution issued by Honorable Joselito
SD. Generoso, dated July 18, 1991.” (p. 32, Rollo.)

It enjoined the sheriff “to enforce
the writ of execution” instead of enjoining him not to enforce
it. However, common sense should
have informed Franco that as the purpose of the restraining order was “to
maintain the status quo,” (p. 32, Rollo) he should not
enforce the writ of execution which had not yet been implemented on the date
the temporary restraining order was issued and received by him.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Joselito SD. Generoso is
admonished to exercise due care in the discharge of his judicial functions,
especially in ascertaining whether regular or summary procedure should be
followed in the cases assigned to him for trial and adjudication. Respondent Deputy Sheriff Jesus T. Franco,
Jr. is hereby reprimanded and ordered to pay a fine of P1,000.00 for his
willful disobedience of the temporary restraining order issued by the Regional
Trial Court in Civil Case No. Q-91-9543.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Padilla, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Medialdea, J., on leave.