Abuse of authority

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) Updated December 16, 2010 

The most difficult phase of any court proceeding is the execution of judgment because of the hazards that go with its implementation. Nevertheless, the sheriff who is charged with this task must perform his duties by the book. If he does not, he may be held administratively liable. This is what happened to Tino, the Sheriff IV of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch.

The case against Tino stemmed from the execution of the decision in an ejectment case rendered by the Municipal Trial Court (MTCC) against the spouses Mario and Alma. While Mario and Alma appealed said decision to the RTC, the latter still issued an order of execution pending appeal for failure of Mario and Alma to file a supersedeas bond and to periodically deposit the monthly rentals.

A writ of execution was thus issued by the Clerk of Court (Rey) commanding the Sheriff (Gene) to facilitate the issuance of the notice to vacate and to forcibly eject the spouses from the premises and to satisfy the judgment debt first through the goods and chattels of the spouses then through the building s not exempt from execution. Pursuant thereto, Gene issued a notice to vacate. By order of the RTC, Tino was tasked to assist and implement the writ of execution.

In the implementation of the writ however, Tino demolished the house of Mario and Alma without a court order for the purpose.

So Mario and Alma filed an administrative complaint not only against Tino, but also against Rey and Gene charging them with Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct and Ignorance of the Law. The spouse faulted Rey for issuing the writ of execution despite the pendency of the appeal in the RTC; Gene for directing them to vacate the premises and to pay plaintiff sums of money and attoreny’s fees; and Tino, for demolishing their house without a special order from the court to do so.

After Tino, Rey and Gene filed their comments, the Judge who was designated to investigate the complaint reported and recommended that the complaint against Rey and Gene be dismissed as they merely performed their official duties in issuing the writ of execution and implementing it, respectively. But as for Tino, the Judge found that he caused the demolition of the house of the spouses without any writ of demolition and thus he should be suspended for two months for simple misconduct. This findings and recommendation was adopted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Were the Judge and OCA correct?

Yes. When the property subject of the execution contains improvements constructed or planted by the party against whom the writ is being enforced, the Sheriff or Officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove said improvements except by special order of the court, issued upon motion of the winning party, after due hearing and after the former failed to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court (Section 10 (d), Rule 39 Rules of Court).

This rule is based on the rudiments of justice and fair play. It frowns upon arbitrariness and oppressive conduct in the execution of an otherwise legitimate act.

Tino’s compliance with the Rules of court especially in the execution of judgment is not merely directory but mandatory. He is expected to know the rules of procedure particularly when they pertain to his function as an officer of the court. Since there was no order in the writ for the demolition of the improvements on the land subject of the ejectment case, Tino’s failure to observe the rules constitutes abuse of authority. But instead of only two months suspension, his penalty should be six months and one day suspension with the usual stern warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely (Yaeso vs. Enolpe, Regalado and Alimurung, A.M. P-08-2584, November 15, 2010).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net