AM 94 1070; (April, 1997) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-94-1070. April 8, 1997. Eddie Babor vs. Vito P. Garchitorena, Deputy Sheriff, RTC-OCC, Pili, Camarines Sur.
FACTS
Complainant Eddie Babor charged respondent Deputy Sheriff Vito P. Garchitorena with grave abuse of authority, serious misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the service. Babor alleged that in implementing a writ of execution for forcible entry cases involving only 10 hectares, the sheriff forcibly ousted him from an entire 38.9-hectare property before the lapse of a mandated 3-day notice to vacate. The sheriff also allegedly oversaw the fencing of the property with barbed wire by the prevailing party’s laborers, aided by police escorts.
In his defense, respondent sheriff denied the charges. He claimed he merely served the writ and gave the 3-day notice, and that the fencing was done by the plaintiff without his instigation. He attached affidavits from the plaintiff and an overseer stating they were solely responsible for the fencing, done in the sheriff’s presence due to threats from Babor. The case was investigated by the Executive Judge, who eventually submitted a report.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Vito P. Garchitorena is administratively liable for grave abuse of authority, oppression, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in implementing the writ of execution.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that the sheriff’s actions constituted grave abuse of authority and oppression. The legal logic centers on the sheriff’s mandatory duty to execute judgments strictly in accordance with their terms. The writ involved only a specific portion of land, yet the sheriff’s presence and actions facilitated the plaintiff’s control over a significantly larger area, exceeding the judgment’s scope. His active supervision of the fencing operation for three days, supported by a police contingent, was an oppressive use of authority, especially where no resistance from the defendant was reported.
The Court rejected the sheriff’s defense that he was merely present and not directly involved. A sheriff cannot evade responsibility by claiming non-participation in the physical acts when his official presence and authority enabled those acts. His conduct eroded public trust in the judiciary, violating the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust. For these infractions, the Court suspended him from office for six months.