A.M. No. P-1251. January 6, 1978. HERMINIA V. GALMAN, REMEDIOS MENDOZA and LOYDA JUSTINIANO, complainants, vs. JESUS GUASCH, Deputy Sheriff of Manila, respondent.
FACTS

Complainants Herminia V. Galman, Remedios Mendoza, and Loyda Justiniano charged Deputy Sheriff Jesus Guasch with serious misconduct in enforcing a writ of execution. They alleged that on April 1, 1976, Guasch padlocked their stores without a proper inventory of contents, threatened persons on the premises not to force open the doors, and instructed security guards to shoot anyone who disobeyed. They further claimed that when the Court of Appeals issued a resolution on April 2, 1976, directing Guasch to remove the padlocks and restore possession, he deliberately made himself unavailable, preventing the resolution’s implementation until April 5, when a locksmith was finally used.
In his sworn answer, respondent Guasch denied the allegations. He explained he was lawfully enforcing a writ of execution after the Court of Appeals had dissolved a prior restraining order. He asserted he conducted a proper levy and inventory, delivered possession to the winning party, and posted notices of sale. Regarding the appellate court’s subsequent resolution, he claimed that on April 5, he accompanied the parties to a justice’s office to clarify the matter, but during the discussion, he was informed that complainants, aided by military personnel, had already forcibly opened the padlocks.

ISSUE

Whether Deputy Sheriff Jesus Guasch committed serious misconduct warranting disciplinary action in the enforcement of the writ of execution and the subsequent Court of Appeals resolution.

RULING

The Court found that respondent Guasch was, in the main, performing his official duty in enforcing the writ of execution for the delivery of property. The legal logic is grounded in Section 13, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which mandates the officer to enforce such an execution by ousting the person against whom judgment is rendered and placing the judgment creditor in possession. Therefore, his act of padlocking the stores to effect the ejectment was within the scope of his authority under the writ.
However, the Court censured Guasch for his lack of courtesy and cooperation. His failure to be available or to produce the keys to the padlocks when Deputy Sheriff Prudencio attempted to implement the Court of Appeals’ resolution of April 2, 1976, created unnecessary obstruction and justified the complainants’ suspicion of partiality. This conduct fell short of the high standards of civility and professionalism required of court personnel, whose actions must inspire public confidence in the administration of justice. While not rising to the level of serious misconduct meriting severe penalty, his discourteous behavior was admonishable. Consequently, the Court admonished respondent Guasch to be more careful and to act with civility and courtesy in discharging his official functions.