A.M. No. R-89-P. November 24, 1988
Dominga S. Cunanan, Complainant, vs. Sheriff Jose L. Cruz, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Dominga S. Cunanan, housemaid of Alicia Criss, filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Jose L. Cruz for grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct. She alleged that on October 18, 1983, the respondent forcibly evicted her from her residence at 339 San Rafael St., San Miguel, Manila, in connection with the execution of a judgment in Civil Case No. 144328 (“Talamayan, et al. v. Carreon and Criss”). Cunanan asserted she was not a party to that case and her right to remain stemmed from a “Provision for Free Lifetime Lodging” executed by the property’s vendee, Edgardo Carreon, in favor of her employer, Alicia Criss, which included one household helper. She claimed loss of personal belongings due to the illegal execution.
The property was originally owned by Alicia Criss and sold to Atty. Edgardo Carreon. Due to Criss’s failure to vacate, Carreon filed an ejectment case (“Carreon v. Criss”) where the compromise decision ordered Criss “and all persons claiming under her” to vacate by December 30, 1980. Tenants, including Cunanan, resisted execution and filed a separate petition for relief (“Talamayan v. Carreon and Criss”) in the CFI, which resulted in a restraining order and later a compromise judgment. An alias writ of execution was issued in this Talamayan case on October 10, 1983.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Jose L. Cruz is administratively liable for his actions in enforcing the writ of execution against complainant Dominga S. Cunanan.

RULING

Yes, the respondent sheriff is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of negligence and dishonesty. The legal logic is clear: a sheriff’s duty in executing writs is ministerial, requiring strict adherence to the judgment’s dispositive part. The respondent initially claimed he enforced the writ from the “Carreon v. Criss” case, where Cunanan, as a person claiming under defendant Criss, could be subject to ejection. However, under oath, he later admitted enforcing the alias writ from the “Talamayan” case. A review of the Talamayan decision shows Cunanan was never a party plaintiff, nor was she mentioned in the compromise agreement or the dispositive portion ordering specific plaintiffs to vacate. Her claim of right was derived solely from her capacity as Criss’s housemaid, not from the Talamayan plaintiffs. Therefore, enforcing the Talamayan writ against her was a clear overreach and abuse of authority, as it executed a judgment against a non-party.
Furthermore, the Court found dishonesty in the preparation of the sheriff’s return, which was likely fabricated to align with the Carreon case writ. Even assuming he acted under the Carreon writ, its enforcement in October 1983 was invalid. The writ, issued on June 30, 1981, had a mandatory lifespan for execution and return of 60 days, tolled only by the restraining order in the Talamayan case. This period recommenced after the appellate decision in that case was promulgated on February 8, 1983. Enforcement eight months later, in October 1983, was far beyond the writ’s lawful life, constituting negligence and undue delay in the administration of justice. The charge regarding lost belongings was dismissed for lack of convincing evidence. The Court imposed a fine equivalent to five months’ salary with a stern warning.