Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 23 2003.

G.R. Nos. 141810 and 141812 (Vicente delos Santos et al., vs. Fred Elizalde, et al.)

Before the Court is the Motion to Declare Respondents, their Counsels, the Sheriff in Contempt of Court filed by herein petitioners on September 12, 2000.[1]

On June 26, 2000, the petitioners filed with the Court an urgent motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ for preliminary injunction on the ground that despite the filing of a petition for review,[2] the respondents were able to obtain on June 22, 2000 an “Alias Writ of Demolition” and on June 23, 2000 a “Final Notice to Vacate” from the Regional Trial Court, Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 6.[3] The writ of execution if not enjoined would render ineffectual the resolution of the case by this Court. The petitioners served the private respondents with copies of their motion by registered mail.

On June 28, 2000, the Court required the respondents to file their respective comments on the motion. Copies of the resolution were served on the respondents by registered mail.

On June 29, 2000, the urgent motion for TRO was reiterated when demolition of structures on subject property was being undertaken by the respondents and their counsel in violation of Section 28, Republic Act No. 7279.[4]

Upon intercession of Acting Mayor Ceciron S. Cawaling who called the parties to a conference at 3 o’clock in the afternoon of June 29, 2000,.demolition was temporarily held in abeyance “in order to avert further injuries sustained by both parties and in order that the tourists in the island will not be disturbed and put at risk.”[5]

On June 30, 2000, we issued the TRO prayed for by the petitioners.[6] On the same day, the presiding judge and deputy sheriffs of RTC, Kalibo, Branch 6, were informed of the TRO by telegram.

On September 12, 2000, the petitioners filed the instant motion for contempt alleging that (a) “on or about 4 o’clock in the morning of June 29, 2000, the writ of demolition was implemented against the petitioners as relayed through long distance call to undersigned counsel, with the aid of ‘hooded’ men fully armed with guns in violation of Sec. 28, R.A. 7279;” (b) “the issuance and the ongoing implementation of the writ of demolition was made in violation of the above mandatory requirement as mandated by law;” and, (c) “at about 12:20 in the afternoon of June 29, 2000, there was already a massive demolition and several people were already injured.”[7] It was further alleged that the sheriffs who implemented the writ of demolition in connivance with the respondents’ counsel should not have immediately turned over the premises in litigation to the respondents, and since the respondents failed to preserve the status quo they are therefore guilty of disobedience to the court.

In their “Comment,”[8] the respondent Sheriffs denied the allegations of the petitioners claiming that in implementing the writ of demolition, they were accompanied by fifty (50) policemen from the PNP and not “with the aid of hooded men” as alleged by the petitioners. The respondents further alleged that they started to demolish the structures at about 7:30 in the morning of June 29, 2000 and stopped at about 3 o’clock that afternoon upon the request of the Acting Mayor of Malay, Aklan, in order to avert further injuries to both parties as a result of the demolition which was met with violent resistance. They further alleged that they were only implementing the Writ of Demolition dated September 10, 1998 and the Alias Writ of Demolition dated June 22, 2000 issued by Judge Niovady Marin, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 6. They denied having connived with anyone else but were only following court orders directing “the plaintiffs or any persons claiming interest therein to deliver complete possession of the land to defendants and first set. of intervenors.”

The First Set of Intervenors (Jesus delos Santos and Rosita Flores), in their “Comment,” explained that they applied for a writ of execution pending appeal considering that 2/3-portion of the subject land had already been adjudicated to them.

On June 18, 1996, the trial court issued a Special Order granting their motion for execution pending appeal due to their old age, Jesus delos Santos, being then 63 years old, and Rosita Flores, 65, and their poor health and poverty, and that they were deprived of the possession and ownership of their property since 1974. According to them, the propriety as well as validity of the execution pending appeal was in fact challenged twice by the petitioners; first, through a petition for relief from judgment that sought to stay execution, and second, through an application for injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals upheld the execution pending appeal in a Resolution dated July 28, 1998,[9] but execution was not effected due to the violent resistance of the petitioners. On June 6,. 2000, herein respondents filed their motion for an alias writ of demolition which was granted by the trial court. The eviction of the petitioners is therefore lawful and the TRO obtained was just another scheme resorted to by the petitioners to prolong their stay in the premises.

The Second Set of Intervenors (Gloria Martin, et. al.) manifested that they opted not to file any comment as the alleged contemptuous acts imputed in the motion were not directed at them.

Likewise, by way of compliance, respondent Elizalde asked that they be also excused from filing a comment for the same reason.

We are constrained to deny the motion for contempt. There is no clear showing in the record when the respondents, their counsel and the sheriffs received the urgent motion of the petitioners for a temporary restraining order, more so that our Resolution of June 28, 2000 was received by the respondents only on July 6, 2000. When the respondent sheriffs implemented the writ of demolition issued by the trial court, they were not aware of the TRO issued by this Court.

We find unpersuasive petitioners’ claim that the demolition was carried out by hooded and armed men in violation of the law. As the records show, the demolition was effected with the aid of policemen. It is difficult to accept the pictures of hooded men appended to the petitioners’ motion absent any corroboration from disinterested witnesses that the demolition was indeed carried out by hooded or armed men.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the motion of the petitioners to cite private respondents, their counsel and respondent sheriffs in contempt of court is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court