A.M. No. P-02-1600. April 30, 2003.
DOMINADOR AREVALO, et al., complainants, vs. EDGARDO S. LORIA, Deputy Sheriff, and CELESTINA D. ROTA, Branch Clerk of Court, respondents.

FACTS

Complainants, residents of Sitio III, Campo 2, Brgy. Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City, filed an administrative complaint against respondents for gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and misconduct. The case stemmed from an ejectment suit filed by Manila Paper Mills, Inc., against members of the Urban Poor United Neighborhood Association, Inc., “and any person claiming rights under them.” Complainants asserted they were not named defendants nor claimed rights under the defendants. After a decision for the plaintiff, a writ of execution and later a writ of demolition were issued. Complainants filed various motions, including a motion to recall the writ of demolition. The trial court issued an order on March 23, 2001, holding the demolition in abeyance.
Complainants alleged that despite the March 23 order, respondent Sheriff Edgardo Loria implemented the writ of demolition on the same day and failed to submit a mandatory sheriff’s return. They further accused respondent Clerk of Court Celestina Rota of issuing an overly broad writ of demolition that varied from the court order and of refusing to issue a certification that the judgment had been satisfied due to the pending sheriff’s return.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Edgardo S. Loria and Celestina D. Rota are administratively liable for neglect of duty in connection with the implementation of the writ of demolition and the issuance of the corresponding writ.

RULING

The Court found both respondents liable for simple neglect of duty. Regarding respondent Rota, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s finding that while she was justified in issuing the writ pursuant to a court order, she erred in drafting it with language broader than the dispositive portion of the order. This constituted a lapse in her duty to faithfully reflect the court’s directive. However, the Court found no evidence of malice or ill motive in her actions.
As for respondent Loria, his duty to execute a final writ is ministerial. In the absence of a restraining order, he was obligated to implement the writ with reasonable dispatch. The Court held he could not be faulted for proceeding with the demolition on March 23, as the order holding it in abeyance was issued on the same day and he had not been formally restrained. Nevertheless, Loria was remiss in his duty for failing to submit a sheriff’s return as required under Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. This return is mandatory and ensures transparency and accountability in the execution process.
The Court emphasized the critical role of court personnel in the administration of justice and the high standards expected of them. For their neglect, each respondent was fined One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) with a stern warning.