G.R. No. A.M. No. 2397-MJ and A.M. No. P-2396 July 30, 1982
ERNESTO D. BONILLA, complainant, vs. LEONARDO AFABLE, Judge of the Municipal Circuit Court of San Marcelino-Castillejos, Zambales, respondent. ERNESTO D. BONILLA, complainant, vs. ATILANO NANQUIL, Deputy Provincial Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Olongapo, Zambales, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ernesto D. Bonilla charged Judge Leonardo Afable with issuing a demolition order on September 12, 1979, for the execution of a forcible entry judgment (Civil Case No. 205). The order directed the removal of houses from a 60,000-square-meter land, which was substantially larger than the 37,968-square-meter parcel actually adjudicated in the underlying case. In the same complaint, Deputy Sheriff Atilano Nanquil was accused of arbitrarily executing this order without giving the occupants reasonable time to pack their belongings.
Judge Afable admitted the error in his order, explaining he was misled by a sheriff’s report (Notice of Levy) that described a different, larger property. He claimed to have corrected the order upon realizing the mistake. Sheriff Nanquil denied the allegations, asserting that the occupants were treated with consideration during the execution. The case was referred for investigation, but the complainant failed to appear at the hearings, leading to a recommendation for dismissal due to failure to prosecute.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Afable and Sheriff Nanquil should be held administratively liable for their actions related to the erroneous demolition order and its execution.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Judge Afable administratively liable but exonerated Sheriff Nanquil. The Court held that Judge Afable committed a serious error by relying on the sheriff’s report for the land description instead of the decision in Civil Case No. 205, which was the sole authority for the execution. The sheriff’s report pertained to a different parcel of land levied to satisfy a monetary award, not the property subject of the forcible entry judgment. This failure to verify the fundamental details of the case before issuing a coercive order demonstrated a lack of due care and diligence in the performance of judicial duties. While the lapse was unintentional and without corrupt motive, a judge is accountable for such negligence. Consequently, Judge Afable was admonished and warned to exercise greater care.
Regarding Sheriff Nanquil, the charges were not substantiated. The complainant’s failure to prosecute during the investigation left the allegations unsupported by evidence. Nanquil’s denial, coupled with the lack of proof to contradict his claim of proper conduct, warranted his exoneration.