G.R. No. A.M. No. P-2089 September 30, 1981
Felbet’s Timber, Inc. and Felix J. Domingo, complainants, vs. Glicerio Lumuthang and Antonio Letada, respondents.

FACTS

The complainants filed an administrative case against Deputy Sheriffs Glicerio Lumuthang and Antonio Letada of the Court of First Instance of Davao del Norte for oppression, misconduct, and discourtesy. The sheriffs enforced a writ of execution issued by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against Felbet’s Timber, Inc. on November 19, 1978. However, prior to this levy, the NLRC en banc had already issued a resolution on November 17, 1978, enjoining the execution. Although this resolution was not officially served until November 20, the complainants’ counsel, Atty. Blasito Angeles, sent a letter to respondent Lumuthang on November 18, informing him of the impending restraining order and requesting a suspension of the levy pending official verification.
The letter was delivered to Lumuthang on November 19 at the complainants’ logging compound, where he and Letada, accompanied by the opposing counsel, were already in the process of seizing properties. Despite the plea from the complainants’ representative to suspend the levy and verify the information with the NLRC office, Lumuthang proceeded with the seizure of five motor vehicles and other personal properties. The official restraining order was served on the sheriffs the following day, November 20, after which the properties were returned.

ISSUE

Whether respondent sheriffs, particularly Glicerio Lumuthang, committed grave misconduct and oppression in proceeding with the execution levy despite being informed of a probable restraining order.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Deputy Sheriff Glicerio Lumuthang guilty of grave misconduct. The legal logic centers on the duty of a sheriff to act with prudence and circumspection, not merely as a blind enforcer. While the official NLRC resolution was not in Lumuthang’s physical possession on November 19, he received formal written communication from the adverse party’s counsel relaying official information from the NLRC Regional Office about an issued restraining order. His failure to make a minimal effort to verify this information—such as a phone call to the NLRC office—before proceeding with a disruptive levy constituted a grave abuse of discretion. A brief delay to confirm would have caused no prejudice to the prevailing parties but would have upheld the integrity of the judicial process and prevented unnecessary burden on the complainants.
The Court rejected the investigating judge’s recommendation of a mere warning, noting Lumuthang’s record of prior administrative offenses, including a previous suspension for grave abuse of authority. This recidivism demonstrated a pattern of misconduct warranting severe penalty. Conversely, respondent Antonio Letada was absolved, as the evidence showed he was merely assisting, and the decision to proceed was solely Lumuthang’s. Consequently, the Court ordered Lumuthang considered resigned from the service with prejudice to reinstatement.