G.R. No. P-97-1252 October 16, 1997
Orestes R. Santos vs. Norberto V. Doblada, Jr., Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 155, Pasig City

FACTS

Complainant Orestes R. Santos, Project Manager of Greenridge Executive Village, charged respondent Deputy Sheriff Norberto V. Doblada, Jr. with abuse of authority. The charge stemmed from the implementation of a writ of possession issued on July 21, 1994, in Civil Case No. 34242. The writ ordered the sheriff to place the defendants in possession of only those portions of the property not occupied by bona fide occupants with registered titles, bona fide occupants whose possession ripened to ownership, or squatters. Complainant alleged that on February 29, 1996, at dawn, respondent sheriff, along with policemen, military personnel, and private security guards of Rommel Realty Corporation, barged into Greenridge Executive Village without legal authority, threatened the subdivision guards, and caused the private security guards to occupy the front portion of the subdivision. This act was done without first securing an alias writ of possession, and the notice to vacate was served on Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc., the owner of the subdivision, contrary to the court’s directive limiting the writ’s coverage. Respondent sheriff denied using force, claiming the service occurred in the afternoon as a standard procedure within a five-day grace period, with police present to maintain peace. He argued the writ’s implementation was ongoing and had not expired due to continuous execution proceedings, thus he submitted periodic reports instead of a return after the sixty-day period.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Norberto V. Doblada, Jr. committed grave abuse of authority in implementing the writ of possession beyond its statutory life and in a manner contrary to the court’s order.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent sheriff guilty of grave abuse of authority. The Court ruled that the life of a writ of execution, under Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, is only sixty days from the sheriff’s receipt. All acts done by the sheriff after this period are null and void, as the writ becomes functus officio. Respondent sheriff implemented the writ on February 29, 1996, nearly one and a half years after its issuance on July 21, 1994, clearly failing in his duty to execute the court order within the legal timeframe. His contention that the writ did not expire due to continuous proceedings was found to have no legal basis. Accordingly, the Court imposed upon him a fine of Two Thousand Pesos with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.