When writ of execution issue
Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Court provides for the instances when execution may be had, namely: (1) after a decision or order has become final and executory; (2) pending appeal, only upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing; and (3) execution of several, separate or partial judgments.
In this case, the Order dated February 15, 1999 of DAR Regional Director Dalugdug denying the Berenguers’ application for exclusion from CARP is yet to become final and executory as it was seasonably appealed to the DAR Secretary. There is also nothing in the records that will show whether BARIBAG posted a bond pursuant to the Rules.
While a judge may not be disciplined for error of judgment absent proof that such error was made with a conscious and deliberate intent to cause an injustice, the facts on hand prove otherwise. Florin’s issuance of the writ of execution and writ of possession in order to fully implement Regional Director Dalugdug’s Order dated February 15, 1999 clearly constitutes ignorance of the law for as a rule, a writ of execution is issued only after the subject judgment or order has already become final and executory. As aptly stated by IBP Commissioner San Juan, Florin ordered the issuance of such writs despite the pendency of the appeal with the DARAB. Consequently, the Court finds merit in the recommendation of suspension. [Berenguer vs Florin, A.C. No. 5119, April 17, 2013]
