SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. and HEIRS OF PETRA CAPISTRANO PIIT, vs. JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL

 SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. and HEIRS OF PETRA CAPISTRANO PIIT,  vs.

 JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL

                                            

Facts: This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The principal issue presented for resolution is whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction to annul final judgment of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). Petra Capistrano Piit and Springfield owned a lot which the DAR placed it as a property under the coverage of RA. 6657 (CARP).  After DARAB gave due course to the Notice of Coverage,  Springfield and the heirs of Piit (petitioners) filed with the RTC of Cagayan de Oro City,  a petition for annulment of the DARAB Decision and all its subsequent proceedings. The RTC issued an Order dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over DARAB decisions?

Held: It was held that given that DARAB decisions are appealable to the CA, the inevitable conclusion is that the DARAB is a co-equal body with the RTC and its decisions are beyond the RTC's control. Therefore, the RTC cannot annul the DARAB decision.

MERLINDA L. DAGOOC, vs. ROBERTO A. ERLINA

MERLINDA L. DAGOOC,  vs. ROBERTO A. ERLINA, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 40, Tandag, Surigao del Sur

Facts: This is a complaint for misconduct and ignorance of the law filed by Merlinda L. Dagooc of Diatagon, Lianga, Surigao del Sur, against deputy sheriff Roberto A. Erlina of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Tandag, Surigao del Sur.

Complainant alleged that she was the plaintiff in a civil case before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Diatagon, Lianga, Surigao del Sur. The court rendered judgment by compromise agreement which immediately became final and executory. Complainant moved for the execution of the decision and, on February 28, 2002, a writ of execution was issued which was endorsed to respondent deputy sheriff Erlina for execution. The defendants, however, could not pay the money judgment. Instead of levying on the properties of the defendants to satisfy the judgment, however, sheriff Erlina asked them to execute promissory notes in favor of complainant which he asked the latter to collect from the defendants. Complainant further alleged that respondent sheriff indicated in his return of service that defendants were insolvent. But upon verification with the assessor's office of Tandag, Surigao del Sur, complainant discovered that defendants owned real properties, as evidenced by the real property field appraisal and assessment sheet.

Issue: Whether or not the sheriff is right in not levying the properties of the judgment debtor.

Held: The respondent sheriff did not know his duties and functions under Section 9, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court which clearly states how the execution of money judgments should be made: Section 9. Execution of judgments for money, how enforced. ' (a) Immediate payment on demand. ' The officer shall enforce an execution of a judgment for money by demanding from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees. The judgment obligor shall pay in cash, certified bank check payable to the judgment obligee, or any other form of payment acceptable to the latter…” Dagooc objected because the promissory notes of the defendants did not satisfy the money judgment in her favor. If the judgment debtor cannot pay all or part of the obligation in cash, certified bank check or other mode of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee, the money judgment shall be satisfied by levying on the properties of the judgment debtor, to which the sheriff failed to do. Respondent sheriff ROBERTO A. ERLINA of was found GUILTY of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his official duties.