G.R. No. A.M. No. P-1161 July 31, 1978
Victoria Prieto and Pacifico Salapare, complainants, vs. Crispin Peralta, Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Sur, respondent.

FACTS

The complainants, spouses Victoria Prieto and Pacifico Salapare, filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Provincial Sheriff Crispin Peralta. The charges stemmed from Peralta’s enforcement of a writ of possession issued by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur in a foreclosure case decided against the Salapares. The complainants alleged ignorance of the law, oppression, extortion, abuse of authority, and irregularity in the performance of duties. Specifically, they claimed Peralta enforced the writ without them receiving a prior motion or court order, selected a Saturday afternoon to prevent them from seeking judicial relief, demanded a P3,000 payment to delay enforcement, and, with PC assistance, forcibly ejected occupants from their beer house and dormitory and demolished improvements without a special court order as allegedly required by the Rules of Court.
Respondent Peralta denied all charges. The case was referred to Executive Judge Rafael dela Cruz for investigation. Judge dela Cruz conducted hearings, receiving testimonial and documentary evidence from both parties. He noted the complainants’ understandable resentment from losing the foreclosure case but found their specific grievances largely unsubstantiated by the evidence presented during the investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Crispin Peralta is administratively liable for the acts complained of in the enforcement of the writ of possession.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the charges and exonerated respondent Peralta, adopting the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Judge. The legal logic rests on the Court’s deference to the factual conclusions of the investigating judge who personally observed the witnesses’ demeanor and assessed the evidence’s credibility. The Court found no basis for the administrative charges. The alleged procedural defects—such as the enforcement without the complainants receiving a copy of the order or a travel order, and without prior payment of sheriff’s fees—did not constitute ignorance of the law or irregularity. Furnishing copies of court orders is not the sheriff’s duty, travel orders are for administrative tracking, and fee collection is a separate ministerial act. The request for PC assistance was justified given the sheriff’s lack of firearm authority and the complainant’s background as a former gun dealer. The choice of a Saturday for enforcement was not proven to be malicious. The allegation of extortion was not corroborated. Finally, the demolition of improvements was deemed part of enforcing the writ of possession to deliver the property, not an act requiring a separate special order under the circumstances found by the investigator. The Court, however, reminded Peralta that zeal in duty must be balanced with courtesy and consideration for losing litigants.