G.R. No. A.M. No. CA-94-7-P; February 8, 1996
Clemente Sy, complainant, vs. Jaime B. Yerro, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Clemente Sy, President of the House International Tenants Association, charged Jaime B. Yerro, a Records Officer I at the Court of Appeals, with grave misconduct, usurpation of official functions, and violation of Civil Service rules. The complaint stemmed from the implementation of an alias writ of execution for eviction at the House International Building in Manila. Sy alleged that on November 25 and December 2, 1993, Yerro, while on official leave, actively participated in the eviction by representing himself as a sheriff, posting notices, kicking doors, hurling invectives at tenants, and overseeing the levying of properties. These acts were witnessed by the official sheriff, a policeman, and barangay officials. Photographs depicted Yerro with a flashlight, accompanying the sheriff’s team.
In his defense, Yerro denied the allegations, claiming he was merely at the building to meet a lawyer and was a silent observer. He presented his time card to dispute presence on one date, arguing that complainant and his lawyer were the ones harassing the sheriff to obstruct the eviction.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Jaime B. Yerro is administratively liable for the acts complained of.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty and ordered his dismissal. The Court upheld the investigating officer’s findings, rejecting Yerro’s denials as self-serving and outweighed by the positive testimonies of multiple witnesses and photographic evidence showing his active involvement in the eviction process. His presence at the building while on sick leave constituted dishonesty. More critically, by misrepresenting himself as a sheriff and interfering in the execution proceedings of another court, Yerro committed grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The legal logic is clear: court personnel must uphold the highest standards of propriety and decorum. Yerro’s actions constituted a clear case of intervention in another court’s proceedings, which cannot be tolerated as it could indirectly implicate his office, the Court of Appeals, in future litigation. His conduct violated the trust and ethical standards demanded of all court employees, whose behavior must always be beyond reproach to preserve the judiciary’s integrity. Thus, dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from reemployment in government was the appropriate penalty.