KATIHAN v.
JUDGE MACEREN WON the order of demolition issued by the
Facts:
1. This case involves an administrative
complaint filed by KATIHAN against
Judge Maceren of MeTC of Manila and
Sheriff Ortega.
2. The complaint alleged that due to the
writ of demolition issued by J.
Maceren, KATIHAN was ejected from
the property without due process of
law.
a. They declare that they should
not be affected by the decision
rendered by J. Maceren in the
ejectment and damages case
filed by Limsui against the
unlawful settlers of his property
because there group were not
impleaded as respondents
thereto.
b. As for Sheriff Ortega, they
averred that his issuance of a
notice of demolition was not
proper as it was made without
order or authority from the
MeTC.
3. The Court exonerated Judge Maceren
from the administrative liability on the
ground that there was no concrete
evidence that he allowed or
participated in the Sherrif’s act but it
ruled that Sheriff Ortega is
administratively liable.
4. In a motion for reconsideration filed
by Sheriff Ortega, he insisted that he
committed no wrong in issuing the
notice of demolition without the order
from the MeTC as it was the party
themselves who agreed to the
demolition under the compromise
agreement.
ISSUE:
Sheriff was proper.
Ruling:
1. NO. The order of demolition was not
proper as an outright removal by the
sheriff of the structures erected in the
property subject of execution is not
allowed under Sec. 10 (c) of Rule 39
of the Rules of Court.
2. According to this provision, when the
property subject of the execution
contains improvements constructed or
planted by the judgment obligor, or
his agent, the officer shall not destroy,
demolish or remove said
improvement except upon special
order of the court, issued upon motion
of the judgment oblige after due
hearing and after the former has
failed to remove the same within a
reasonable time fixed by the court.
3. Therefore, aside from the writ of
execution implementing the court’s
decision, another writ or order must
also be acquired from the court before
the removal of the improvements on
the property subject of execution can
be made.
ISSUE # 2: WON the Sherrif properly
furnished the court with the required
periodic reports.
Ruling: No.
1. The Rules of Court mandates the
officer that if the judgment cannot be
satisfied within 30 days after his
receipt of the writ of execution, he
shall report to the court and state the
reason therefor.
2. In this case, the records reveal that on
Nov. 30, 2005, the MeTC issued the
writ of execution and on the same
date, Sheriff Ortega issued the notice
to vacate.

3. Therefore, it was incumbent upon him

to submit a report to the MeTC on
Dec. 30, 2005, and every 30 days
thereafter until the judgment is
satisfied in full or until its effectivity
expires.