10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 335

VOL. 335, JULY 6, 2000 181

Lu vs. Siapno
*
A.M. MTJ­99­1199. July 6, 2000. (Formerly OCA­IPI No.
97­381­MTJ)

FRANCISCO LU, complainant, vs. JUDGE ORLANDO

ANA F. SIAPNO, MTC­URDANETA, PANGASINAN,
DOMINGO S. LOPEZ, SHERIFF IV, RTC­URDANETA,
PANGASINAN, BRANCH 45 and PRIVATE
PROSECUTOR JOSELINO A. VIRAY, respondents.

Administrative Law; Courts; Basic is the rule that a judge

may not order execution of judgment in the decision itself—We
agree with the Court Administrator that respondent Judge
Siapno is guilty of gross ignorance of the law when he rendered
judgment providing, in the dispositive portion, for its immediate
execution. It should be noted that the Regional Trial Court, while
affirming the judgment of the respondent Judge, nevertheless
deleted that portion of the decision providing for immediate
execution. Basic is the rule that a judge may not order execution
of judgment in the decision itself.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

182

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lu vs. Siapno

Same; Same; In an ejectment case, the adverse party is

entitled to notice before execution can be ordered.—Section 21 of
the Rules on Summary Procedure likewise provides that the
decision of the regional trial court is immediately executory. Even
if immediately executory, there must first be a motion to that
effect and a hearing called for that purpose. In an ejectment case,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a48257b4e00b2e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 335

the adverse party is entitled to notice before execution can be

ordered.
Same; Same; When the law is elementary, so elementary not to
know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.—In disregarding
the rules and settled jurisprudence, respondent Judge showed
gross ignorance, albeit without any malice or corrupt motive. The
lack of malicious intent, however, cannot completely free
respondent Judge from liability. When the law is elementary, so
elementary not to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
Same; Same; Mere suspicion that the judge is partial to a
party is not enough; there should be adequate evidence to prove the
charge.—As regards the charge of partiality and bias in favor of
the plaintiffs, we find the same to be unsubstantiated. Mere
suspicion that the judge is partial to a party is not enough; there
should be adequate evidence to prove the charge.
Remedial Law; Judgment; Execution; Even in the Rule on
Summary Procedure, a judgment must first be given to the losing
party before it can be executed.—The issuance of the writ of
execution and its subsequent implementation without motion and
hearing and at the time the copy of the judgment has not yet been
received by defendant’s counsel, was precipitate and against all
sense of fair play. Lu’s counsel received the MTC­decision on
September 13, 1995 and filed a notice of appeal on the same day.
However, the writ of execution was issued by Clerk of Court
Corpuz on September 11, 1995 and was implemented by Sheriff
Lopez on said date. Clearly, there was a violation of the rules of
procedure. Even in the Rule on Summary Procedure, a judgment
must first be given to the losing party before it can be executed.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Gross

Incompetence, Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross
Misconduct and Abdication of Official Function.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

183

VOL. 335, JULY 6, 2000 183

Lu vs. Siapno

GONZAGA­REYES, J.:

Francisco Lu is the defendant in a civil case for ejectment

raffled to respondent Judge Orlando Ana F. Siapno of the
Municipal Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan and
docketed as Civil Case No. 4112. In his administrative
complaint, Francisco Lu alleges that he filed an Answer
1
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a48257b4e00b2e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 335
1
with Counterclaim to the Amended Complaint for
ejectment which was2
later amended. Thereafter, he filed a
Motion to Dismiss the ejectment case on the ground that
plaintiffs therein were no longer the owners of the land in
question, the same having been sold to the Shahanis on
February 7, 1995 and later transferred in the names of the
latter under TCT No. 202393. On September 3
7, 1995,
respondent Judge Siapno rendered judgment against Lu
which decision was 4allegedly received by 5
Lu’s counsel on
September 13, 1995. A notice of appeal was filed on the
same day. On September 11, 1995, MTC­Clerk 6
of Court
Celestina Corpuz issued a Writ of Execution which was
allegedly implemented by Sheriff Domingo S. Lopez of the
Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Branch 45
who forcibly ejected Lu from the premises.
While on appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta,
Pangasinan, Branch 47 issued a preliminary mandatory
injunction and declared the writ of execution earlier issued
7
by the MTC­Urdaneta, Pangasinan to be null and void. On
February 5, 1996, RTC­Branch 47 rendered judgment
modifying the MTC­judgment by deleting the paragraph
“(I)n accordance
8
with the Rules, let a Writ of Execution be
issued.” Hence, Lu filed a petition for review with the
Court of Appeals on February 21, 1996 which was docketed
as CA­G.R.

_______________

1 Annex “B,” p. 12, Rollo.

2 Annex “C,” p. 15, Rollo.
3 Annex “D,” pp. 21­23, Rollo.
4 Par. 5, Complaint­Affidavit, p. 1, Rollo.
5 Annex “E,” p. 24, Rollo.
6 Annex “F,” p. 25, Rollo.
7 Order of November 9, 1995, Annex “H,” pp. 27­31, Rollo.
8 Annex “I,” pp. 32­33, Rollo.

184

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lu vs. Siapno
9
SP No. 39875. Meanwhile, plaintiffs counsel 10
filed on
February 19, 1996 a Motion for Execution with MTC
which was granted by respondent Judge11
Siapno granted in
the Order dated February 22, 1996 allegedly without
notice and hearing. The writ of execution
12
was issued by
Clerk of Court Corpuz on the same day.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a48257b4e00b2e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 335

On April 2, 1996, Atty. Joselino Viray, plaintiff’s

counsel, filed an Ex­parte Motion to Withdraw deposit
praying that the amount deposited in the municipal
treasurer be withdrawn in order to satisfy the judgment. 13
Said motion was granted in the Order dated April 2, 1996.
On April 23, 1996, Atty. Viray filed a Motion for Special
Demolition which was likewise granted by respondent
Judge Siapno, allegedly without notice and hearing, in his
Order of May 20, 1996 which order was later amended on
May 21, 1996 as the ffrst order directed the plaintiff
therein, instead of the14 sheriff, to demolish the structure on
the subject property. On the same date, May 21, 1991,
Sheriff Lopez immediately implemented the order of
demolition by serving a copy of the said order upon
complainant’s wife and proceeding to demolish the
structure,15 building and other improvements on the land in
question. The order of demolition was allegedly
16
received
by complainant’s counsel on May 28, 1996.
Hence, this complaint for gross incompetence, gross
ignorance of the law, abdication of official function and
gross misconduct.
Respondent Siapno denied all the accusations against
him. He filed his Comment and Answer to the complaint
against him. On the charge of gross incompetence in the
performance

_______________

9 Annex “K,” pp. 40­45, Rollo.

10 Annex “L,” p. 48, Rollo.
11 Annex “M,” pp. 49­50, Rollo.
12 Annex “N,” p. 51, Rollo.
13 Annexes “O” & “P,” pp. 52­54, Rollo.
14 Annexes “Q,” “R” & “S,” pp. 55­58, Rollo.
15 Par. 2.d, Counter­Affidavit (Answer), p. 64, Rollo.
16 Par. 2 of Annex “T,” p. 59, Rollo.

185

VOL. 335, JULY 6, 2000 185

Lu vs. Siapno

of his duties for not dismissing Civil Case No. 4112,

respondent Judge argues that complainant Lu filed a
Motion to Dismiss the case on the ground that the land
subject of the controversy was already sold to the Shahanis
but since the said case is governed by the Rules on

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a48257b4e00b2e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 335

Summary Procedure, the court did not take action on Lu’s

motion to dismiss being a prohibited pleading.
As regards the charge of gross ignorance of the law for
rendering a decision providing in its dispositive portion the
issuance of a writ of execution without notice and hearing,
respondent Judge contends that he did not issue a writ of
execution implementing the decision since it was his Clerk
of Court Celestina Corpuz who signed the writ of execution
without his authority. Respondent Judge further denies the
charge of partiality and bias in favor of the plaintiffs and
against the defendant (herein complainant) in the subject
case. He denied having committed a mistake in allowing
the motion to withdraw deposit since his decision has been
affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and under the rules,
the decision of the latter is immediately executory. The
motion for demolition was likewise granted in view of the
affirmance of his decision ordering the defendant to
immediately vacate the premises. Hence, respondent Judge
prays for the dismissal of the instant case for lack of merit.
In the Counter­Affidavit (Answer) of respondent Sheriff
Lopez, he alleges that the writ of execution dated
September 11, 1995 was not implemented because of the
appeal of the MTC­decision to the Regional Trial Court
which nullified the writ; that he was not the one who
implemented the writ of execution but a certain Eduardo
Ramos, the Deputy Sheriff of RTC­Branch 47 since Lopez
was detailed as sheriff of the office of the Clerk of Court
from October 1989 up to April 1997; that per Sheriffs
Return dated February 23, 1996, it was Sheriff Ramos who
implemented the writ of execution, a copy of the writ and
the order having been served upon Lu who voluntarily
vacated the premises; that he (respondent Lopez)
implemented the order of demolition since there was no
restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals while the
186

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lu vs. Siapno

case was pending appeal and that complainant Lu already

voluntarily vacated the premises; and that a copy of the
order of demolition was served upon Lu’s wife, Elvie, who
allegedly refused to sign therein. Respondent Sheriff Lopez
claims that he performed what he believed to be his
ministerial duty.
Respondent Sheriff Lopez filed a Manifestation stating
that he applied for optional retirement to take effect May 9,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a48257b4e00b2e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 335

1998 and requesting that the amount of P20,000.00 be

retained to answer for any penalty that may be meted out
to him. His request was denied in this Court’s Resolution
dated March 24, 1999.
The case was referred to Judge Modesto C. Juanson of
the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Branch 46 for
investigation, report and recommendation. He made the
following findings: (1) on the charge of gross incompetence
in the performance of his duties against respondent Judge,
the same is belied by the RTC­decision dismissing the
appeal which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals; (2) on
gross ignorance of the law, the investigating judge opined
that it was Clerk of Court Corpuz who prepared, signed
and issued the writ of execution without consulting the
respondent Judge thereby absolving the latter from any
responsibility; (3) on the charge of abdication of his official
function, the investigating judge was of the view that
respondent Judge should not be faulted by the
unauthorized action of her clerk of court.
As regards respondent Sheriff Lopez, the investigating
Judge found him guilty for violating the rights of
complainant Lu without giving the latter five (5) days
notice to remove his personal belongings.
Hence, the Investigating Judge made the following
recommendation:

“1. Respondent Siapno is exonerated in all the charges;

2. Respondent Lopez is meted a penalty of P10,000.00
with warning that repetition of the same shall be
dealt with severely;
3. Celestina Corpuz, not being charged, but on the
principle of res ipsa loquitor be meted a fine of
P10,000.00 with the warning that repetition of the
same shall be dealt with severely.”

187

VOL. 335, JULY 6, 2000 187

Lu vs. Siapno

In the Memorandum dated February 10, 2000, the Court

Administrator recommended, inter alia, that the: (1)
respondent Judge Siapno be fined in the amount of
P10,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law; and (2)
respondent Sheriff Lopez and Clerk of Court Corpuz be
likewise fined in the amount of P10,000.00 each. The Court
Administrator opined that the respondent Judge erred in

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a48257b4e00b2e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 335

including in the dispositive portion of his decision the

directive that “(I)n accordance with the Rules, let the Writ
of Execution be issued” and by doing so, respondent Judge
had no other intention but to see to it that the decision is
“immediately executed” without any further action on the
part of the plaintiffs therein.
In the Resolution dated February 28, 2000, this Court
forwarded the charge against Atty. Joselino A. Viray to the
Office of the Bar Confidant, for appropriate action, the
latter having exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
We agree with the Court Administrator that respondent
Judge Siapno is guilty of gross ignorance of the law when
he rendered judgment providing, in the dispositive portion,
for its immediate execution. It should be noted that the
Regional Trial Court, while affirming the judgment of the
respondent Judge, nevertheless deleted that portion of the
decision providing for immediate execution. Basic is the
rule that a judge majr
17
not order execution of judgment in
the decision itself. Section 21 of the Rules on Summary
Procedure likewise provides that the decision of the
regional trial court is immediately executory. Even if
immediately executory, there must first be a motion to that
effect and a hearing called for that purpose. In an
ejectment case, the adverse party 18
is entitled to notice
before execution can be ordered. In disregarding the rules
and settled jurisprudence, respondent Judge showed gross
ignorance, albeit without any malice or corrupt motive. The
lack of malicious intent, however, cannot completely free
respondent Judge from liability. When the law is
elementary,

_______________

17 Felongco vs. Dictado, 223 SCRA 696 (1993).

18 Kaw vs. Anunciacion, Jr., 242 SCRA 1 (1995).

188

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lu vs. Siapno

so elementary
19
not to know it constitutes gross ignorance of
the law.
As regards the charge of partiality and bias in favor of
the plaintiffs, we find the same to be unsubstantiated.
Mere suspicion that the judge is partial to a party is not
enough;20 there should be adequate evidence to prove the
charge.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a48257b4e00b2e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 335

Clerk of Court Corpuz admitted that she issued and

signed the writ of execution without consulting the
respondent judge. Sheriff Lopez likewise admitted that the
writ of execution dated September 11, 1995 was not
implemented because of the appeal to the RTC which
nullified the writ. He claims, however, that he was not the
one who implemented the second writ of execution but it
was Mr. Eduardo Ramos of the RTC­Branch 47. In the
Sheriffs Return dated February 23, 1996 submitted by
Ramos, it appears that Lu vacated the subject premises
voluntarily.
As regards the writ of demolition, Sheriff Lopez argues
that although the RTC­decision was appealed to the Court
of Appeals, the latter did not issue any restraining order,
thus the implementation of the order of demolition
following the return of the writ issued on February 22,
1996.
The Clerk of Court and the Sheriff must be held
responsible. The issuance of the writ of execution and its
subsequent implementation without motion and hearing
and at the time the copy of the judgment has not yet been
received by defendant’s counsel, was precipitate and
against all sense of fair play. Lu’s counsel received the
MTC­decision on September 13, 1995 and filed a notice of
appeal on the same day. However, the writ of execution
was issued by Clerk of Court Corpuz on September 11,
1995 and was implemented by Sheriff Lopez on said date.
Clearly, there was a violation of the rules of procedure.
Even in the Rule on Summary Procedure, a judgment must 21
first be given to the losing party before it can be executed.

_______________

19 Carpio vs. De Guzman, 262 SCRA 615 (1996).

20 Zamudio vs. Peñas, Jr., 286 SCRA 367 (1998).
21 Felongco vs. Dictado, supra.

189

VOL. 335, JULY 6, 2000 189

Lu vs. Siapno

Moreover, as found by Investigating Judge Juanson,

Sheriff Lopez removed the personal belongings of Lu
without giving the latter five (5) days notice to remove the
same or to obtain remedies somewhere. Under the Rules of
Court, the immediate enforcement of a writ of execution in
ejectment cases is carried out by giving the defendant
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a48257b4e00b2e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 335

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 22
removal of the defendant and his personal belongings.
And if demolition is involved, there must first be a hearing
on motion and due notice for23
the issuance of a special order
under Section 14, Rule 39.
While we agree with the recommendation of both the
Court Administrator and the Investigating Judge imposing
a fine upon respondent Sheriff Lopez in the amount of ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00), we find the same to be too
harsh. So too is the fine imposed upon respondent Judge as
recommended by the Court Administrator. Accordingly, the
amount of fine is reduced to five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00) in both cases.
As regards Clerk of Court Corpuz, she was not
impleaded in the instant administrative complaint and
should be given her day in court. The Court Administrator
is directed to institute a separate administrative case
against her.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Judge
Orlando Ana F. Siapno of the Municipal Trial Court of
Urdaneta, Pangasinan is hereby found guilty of gross
ignorance of the law and is FINED in the amount of Five
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).
For gross abuse of authority, respondent Sheriff
Domingo S. Lopez, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of
Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Branch 45 is FINED in the amount
of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).
They are likewise warned that a repetition of the same
or similar act shall be dealt with more severely by this
Court.

_______________

22 City of Manila vs. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 362 (1991).

23 Fuentes vs. Leviste, 117 SCRA 958 (1982).

190

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bejasa vs. Court of Appeals

The Court Administrator is further directed to institute the

appropriate administrative case against Clerk of Court
Celestina Corpuz.
SO ORDERED.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a48257b4e00b2e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 335

     Melo (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban and Purisima,

JJ., concur.

Respondent Judge Orlando Ana F. Siapro meted a

P5,000.00 fine for gross ignorance of the law. Respondent
Sheriff Domingo S. Lopez meted a P5,000.00 fine for gross
abuse of authority. Both warned against repetition of
similar act.

Note.—It has been said that when the law transgressed

is elementary, the failure to know or observe it constitutes
gross ignorance of the law. (Supena vs. De la Rosa, 267
SCRA 1 [1997])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a48257b4e00b2e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10