G.R. No. A.M. No. P-01-1501 September 4, 2001
Josephine D. Sarmiento, complainant, vs. Albert S. Salamat, Sheriff IV, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Josephine D. Sarmiento filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Albert S. Salamat for his alleged failure to implement a Writ of Demolition issued by the Municipal Trial Court. The writ was issued in an ejectment case, Civil Case No. 297-95, entitled “Benjamin U. Refugio v. Josephine D. Sarmiento, et al.,” where Sarmiento was the losing defendant ordered to vacate the premises. Ironically, Sarmiento, the party against whom the writ was directed, faulted the sheriff for not executing it, despite having received a Notice to Vacate. She insisted on the demolition of her own residence.
In his Comment, respondent sheriff denied any neglect of duty. He explained that the implementation of the writ required logistical support—specifically, a demolition crew and police assistance—which, by prior agreement, were to be provided by the prevailing plaintiff, Benjamin Refugio. Respondent asserted that he had served the notice and was prepared to act, but Refugio failed to furnish the necessary logistics, thereby causing the delay and eventual expiration of the writ’s 60-day lifetime.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Albert S. Salamat is administratively liable for his failure to execute the Writ of Demolition.

RULING

No, the respondent sheriff is not administratively liable. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The legal logic rests on two primary grounds. First, on the matter of standing, an administrative complaint for a sheriff’s alleged nonfeasance must be prosecuted by the party whose right is being enforced. Here, the complainant was the defendant against whom the writ was issued; she was not the party entitled to its execution but the very party prejudiced by it. Therefore, she lacked the legal interest to institute the complaint. The Court will not allow a party to take up the cudgels for another, especially when the inaction complained of was, in fact, beneficial to her as it allowed her to remain in possession.
Second, on the substantive merits, the evidence failed to establish any culpable act or omission by the sheriff warranting sanction. The sheriff’s duty to execute a writ is not absolute and unconditional; it is subject to practical considerations, including the availability of required logistical support which, in demolition cases, typically must be provided by the winning party. The respondent had duly served the notice and his failure to proceed was attributable to the plaintiff’s lack of cooperation in providing the agreed-upon demolition crew. There was no showing of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence on the part of the sheriff. The Court emphasized that while it will not tolerate any conduct diminishing public faith in the judiciary, it will equally protect its personnel from baseless accusations that trifle with judicial processes.