Calaunan vs. Madolaria

A sheriff enforcing a writ of execution for the delivery or restitution of real property must personally serve the notice to vacate upon the judgment obligor and all persons claiming rights under them; leaving copies with a caretaker or security guard for distribution does not satisfy the requirement of Section 10(c), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

Buenavista Properties Inc. (Buenavista) and La Savoie Development Corporation (La Savoie) entered into a joint venture to develop a subdivision. Manuel P. Calaunan purchased a house and lot in the subdivision, paid in full, and took possession, though La Savoie failed to deliver the deed of sale and title, prompting Calaunan to file a successful complaint before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Separately, Buenavista sued La Savoie for rescission of their contract and won in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 217, resulting in a writ of execution issued on November 21, 2007, to enforce the judgment and oust the occupants of the subdivision.

• The Writ of Execution: On December 5, 2007, Sheriff Reynaldo B. Madolaria, accompanied by armed men, barangay officials, and representatives of Buenavista, enforced a writ of execution issued by RTC Branch 217 to evict the subdivision residents pursuant to a decision favoring Buenavista against La Savoie.
• The Eviction: Complainant Manuel P. Calaunan arrived home at 7:30 PM to find his house padlocked. Sheriff Madolaria informed him that he was enforcing the writ. Calaunan protested that he was not a party to the case and had not been served a notice to vacate. Notwithstanding his protestations, Calaunan was barred from entering his home and instructed to return on December 8, 2007, to retrieve his belongings.
• The Demolition: In March 2008, Calaunan discovered that his house had been demolished, prompting the filing of the administrative complaint.
• Sheriff's Defense: Sheriff Madolaria claimed that a notice to vacate was served upon the caretaker's wife and the subdivision security guards for distribution to the homeowners after La Savoie ignored the writ. He denied causing the demolition of the house.

• Lack of Notice: Complainant argued that he was not served a notice to vacate prior to the enforcement of the writ of execution.
• Not a Party to the Case: Complainant maintained that he was not a party to the civil case between Buenavista and La Savoie, and therefore the writ of execution could not be enforced against him.
• Liability for Demolition: Complainant alleged that Sheriff Madolaria was responsible for the demolition of his house.

• Compliance with Notice Requirement: Respondent argued that he complied with the notice requirement by serving copies of the notice to vacate upon the caretaker's wife and the security guards, who then distributed them to the residents.
• Denial of Demolition: Respondent stressed that he did not cause or order the demolition of the complainant's house.

• Proper Enforcement of Writ: Whether Sheriff Madolaria complied with the procedural requirements for enforcing a writ of execution for the delivery or restitution of real property under Section 10(c), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
• Liability for Demolition: Whether Sheriff Madolaria is administratively liable for the demolition of the complainant's house.
• Proper Penalty: Whether dismissal from service is the appropriate penalty given the sheriff's prior administrative offenses.

• Proper Enforcement of Writ: The requirement of personal service of the notice to vacate was not met. Section 10(c), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court mandates that the sheriff demand that the judgment obligor and all persons claiming rights under them vacate the property within three working days. Leaving copies of the notice with the caretaker's wife and security guards for distribution does not constitute valid service upon individual residents claiming rights under the judgment obligor.
• Liability for Demolition: Sheriff Madolaria was absolved of liability for the demolition. Mere allegation is not evidence, and in administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations with substantial evidence, which was lacking in this case.
• Proper Penalty: The sheriff was found guilty of simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense. Although the Office of the Court Administrator recommended dismissal based on the sheriff's prior record of grave and less grave offenses, the Court imposed a one-year suspension without pay, noting the absence of malice or bad faith on the part of the sheriff in executing the writ.

• Sheriff's Duty in Enforcing Writ of Execution — A sheriff enforcing a writ of execution for the delivery or restitution of real property must first serve notice of the writ and demand that the judgment obligor and all persons claiming rights under them vacate the property within three working days. Only after this period and upon resistance can the sheriff forcibly enforce the writ. Failure to observe this procedure constitutes simple neglect of duty.
• Substantial Evidence in Administrative Cases — In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence, defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Mere allegation is not equivalent to proof.

• "The requirement of a notice to vacate is based on the rudiments of justice and fair play. The aforementioned provision requires that a notice be served on the 'person against whom the judgment for the delivery or restitution of real property is rendered and all persons claiming rights under him.'"
• "It is patent, therefore, that respondent Sheriff Madolaria did not personally serve copies of the Notice to Vacate and Writ of Execution upon complainant Calaunan."

• Grutas v. Madolaria, A.M. No. P-06-2142 (2008) — Cited as the prior administrative case where Sheriff Madolaria was found guilty of inefficiency, incompetence, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, loafing, and insubordination, for which he was suspended for one year and given a stern warning.
• Mendoza v. Doroni, A.M. No. P-04-1872 (2006) — Cited to support the ruling that failure to observe the requirements of Section 10(c), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court constitutes simple neglect of duty.
• Yaeso v. Enolpe, A.M. No. P-08-2584 (2010) — Cited for the principle that sheriffs are bound to use prudence, due care, and diligence in the discharge of their official duties, and may be fined, suspended, or dismissed for jeopardizing individuals' rights.

• Section 10(c), Rule 39, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs the delivery or restitution of real property. Requires the officer to demand that the person against whom the judgment is rendered, and all persons claiming rights under him, peaceably vacate the property within three (3) working days before the officer can forcibly oust them. Applied to find the sheriff liable for simple neglect of duty for failing to personally serve the notice to vacate on the complainant.
• Section 52(b)(1), Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense punishable by suspension from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense.

Renato C. Corona (CJ), Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Arturo D. Brion, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Roberto A. Abad, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno.