G.R. No. A.M. No. 97-1256 June 22, 1998
Martin V. Brizuela, complainant, vs. Deputy Sheriffs Joseph Antonil of Branch 63; Eriberto de Castro and Villamor Villegas of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Martin V. Brizuela charged Deputy Sheriffs Joseph Antonil, Eriberto de Castro, and Villamor Villegas with grave misconduct, oppression, and dishonesty for allegedly wrongfully implementing a writ of possession and an alias writ of possession issued in LRC Case No. M-3510. Brizuela alleged that respondent Antonil implemented the writ of possession (dated May 24, 1995) on August 24, 1995, which was beyond the 60-day period for enforcement under the Rules of Court. He claimed that during the implementation, no one was in his house, and the sheriffs broke open the steel gates, removed personal belongings, and placed them in the garage. Brizuela and his family later regained possession after informing security guards of pending cases before the Court of Appeals involving the property. Although the temporary restraining order (TRO) from the Court of Appeals had expired, Brizuela argued that the sheriffs should have accorded courtesy to the appellate court where his motion for reconsideration (of the denial of an injunction) was pending. He further alleged that on September 1, 1995, the sheriffs returned with about a hundred personnel to implement an alias writ of possession, disregarding his pending motion, and took personal belongings worth approximately P5,000,000.
In their comments, respondents de Castro and Villegas stated they only participated in implementing the alias writ of possession. They sought police assistance because Brizuela had hired seven heavily armed security guards to thwart enforcement. They delayed implementation until Brizuela’s lawyer arrived in the afternoon to allow time for securing a restraining order, asserting that the writ was implemented in accordance with rules. Respondent Antonil explained that after the writ was issued, he served it on the Brizuela spouses, giving them eight days to vacate. Due to a petition to stay implementation filed by the spouses, he held the writ in abeyance until its denial on June 19, 1995. He served a notice to vacate on June 23, 1995, but found the premises padlocked on June 27, 1995. The Court of Appeals issued a TRO on July 7, 1995, which was lifted on August 7, 1995, when the appellate court denied the prayer for a preliminary injunction. Antonil implemented the writ on August 24, 1995, with assistance from security guards and police, inventorying and safekeeping the spouses’ property. The alias writ was issued on August 29, 1995, and implemented on September 1, 1995, with police assistance due to the armed security guards, and only after Brizuela’s counsel failed to secure another restraining order.
Initially, the Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit per the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) recommendation. Upon Brizuela’s motion for reconsideration, the Court re-docketed the case as an administrative matter.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Deputy Sheriffs Joseph Antonil, Eriberto de Castro, and Villamor Villegas are administratively liable for grave misconduct, oppression, and dishonesty in implementing the writ of possession and alias writ of possession.

RULING

The Court found respondent Joseph Antonil administratively liable for the delay in implementing the writ of possession but not in bad faith, while absolving respondents Eriberto de Castro and Villamor Villegas. Antonil implemented the writ on August 24, 1995, 93 days after its issuance on May 23, 1995, exceeding the 60-day period under the Rules. Although the Court of Appeals’ TRO (issued July 7, 1995) tolled the period for 20 days, the delay persisted. However, the Court held that Antonil did not act in bad faith, as he delayed implementation due to successive pleadings filed by Brizuela and his spouse seeking to suspend enforcement. Considering these circumstances, the Court deemed the OCA’s recommended fine of P1,000.00 too severe and instead administered a reprimand, cautioning Antonil to be more circumspect. No irregularity was established in the implementation of the alias writ of possession; thus, de Castro and Villegas were absolved of liability. The administrative charges against de Castro and Villegas were dismissed.