G.R. No. P-02-1536; January 27, 2006
Margarita Amor, et al. vs. Isaias E. Leyva, Deputy Sheriff

FACTS

Complainants, residents of Antipolo City, filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Isaias E. Leyva for oppression and grave abuse of authority. The charges arose from his implementation of a writ of demolition issued in Civil Case No. 95-3724, a suit for recovery of possession filed by Concepcion Realty, Inc. against specific named defendants. The writ commanded the demolition of structures unlawfully constructed by the defendants “and any or all persons claiming rights under their authority.” On May 12, 1999, respondent sheriff demolished the houses and structures of the complainants.
Complainants alleged they were not parties to the civil case, nor did they derive their rights from any of the named defendants therein. They asserted that the demolition deprived them of property without due process and was executed in a tyrannical manner. Respondent sheriff defended his actions by citing his duty to enforce court writs and pointed out that the complainants had previously filed a motion to exclude their houses in the trial court and a petition for prohibition in the Court of Appeals, both of which were denied.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Isaias E. Leyva is administratively liable for his implementation of the writ of demolition.

RULING

Yes, respondent is liable for simple misconduct. The Supreme Court emphasized that while a sheriff is duty-bound to implement court writs, this duty must be exercised with due care and within legal bounds. The writ of demolition was issued specifically against the named defendants in Civil Case No. 95-3724 and those claiming rights under them. The complainants were not named parties in the complaint or the writ. The mere fact that the writ contained a clause covering persons claiming under the defendants does not grant the sheriff unbridled authority to demolish any structure without first establishing a factual link between those persons and the defendants.
Respondent exceeded his authority by demolishing the complainants’ properties without evidence that they derived their rights from the impleaded defendants. The prior denial of the complainants’ motions in other tribunals did not validate the sheriff’s actions, as those proceedings did not adjudicate the complainants’ substantive rights in the context of the demolition order. The implementation violated the complainants’ right to due process, as they were never afforded a hearing on the matter of their inclusion under the writ’s coverage. Sheriffs, as front-line officers of the court, must perform their duties with circumspection to maintain public trust in the judiciary. Respondent’s lack of diligence constituted simple misconduct. He was fined Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a stern warning.