G.R. No. A.M. No. P-14-3198 and A.M. No. P-14-3199, July 23, 2014
Flora P. Holasca, Petitioner, vs. Anselmo P. Pagunsan, Jr., Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, Respondent. / Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Petitioner, vs. Francisco J. Calibuso, Jr., Clerk of Court III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Cavite City, Respondent.

FACTS

Flora P. Holasca filed a complaint-affidavit against Sheriff Anselmo P. Pagunsan, Jr. for Gross Misconduct and Serious Dereliction of Duty concerning the implementation of a writ of execution in an ejectment case where she was the prevailing plaintiff. Holasca alleged that on February 11, 2009, Pagunsan, accompanied by a process server and Francisco J. Calibuso, Jr. (Clerk of Court), served the writ but did not evict the defendants or inventory their chattels. She claimed Pagunsan told the defendants not to worry about their belongings being seized and advised them to voluntarily vacate. Holasca further alleged that Calibuso gave Pagunsan ₱1,500.00, which Pagunsan accepted without issuing a receipt. When Holasca later found the property vacated and in disarray, Pagunsan took no action to enforce the monetary judgment. Pagunsan, in his answer, admitted serving a Notice to Vacate and giving the defendants three days to leave voluntarily. He claimed they were refused entry to inventory the property and that he advised Holasca, through Calibuso, to secure a Break Open Order, which she failed to do. He denied receiving the ₱1,500.00. Calibuso, in an affidavit, supported Holasca’s version, denying Pagunsan’s claims about the Break Open Order and insisting he gave Pagunsan the money. The OCA, noting Calibuso’s role as a financier in the case, recommended treating the report as an administrative complaint against him as well. Calibuso, in his comment, denied exploiting his position, claiming he assisted Holasca out of gratitude. The cases were consolidated and referred for investigation.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent Sheriff Anselmo P. Pagunsan, Jr. is administratively liable for his actions and omissions in implementing the writ of execution.
2. Whether respondent Clerk of Court Francisco J. Calibuso, Jr. is administratively liable for his conduct in relation to the ejectment case.

RULING

1. As to Sheriff Pagunsan: The Court found him guilty of Gross Inefficiency and Suspended him for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay. The Court held that Pagunsan failed to faithfully and strictly comply with the writ of execution and the rules governing its implementation. His act of merely serving a Notice to Vacate and allowing the defendants to leave voluntarily, without immediately enforcing the eviction and the monetary judgment as mandated by the writ and Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, constituted gross inefficiency and dereliction of duty. His explanation for not inventorying the property was unsatisfactory. His actions caused undue delay and prejudice to the winning party.
2. As to Clerk of Court Calibuso: The Court found him guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Suspended him for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay. The Court held that while his motive to assist a friend may have been benign, his act of financing a litigant’s case and personally intervening in the execution process fell short of the standards of propriety and integrity required of court personnel. Such conduct, regardless of motive, tends to tarnish the public image of the judiciary and erode public confidence in its administration.