A.M. No. P-02-1546. April 18, 2002
Teofila M. Separa, Rosita C. Claridad, Alejandra M. Lucenda and Alejandro M. Basibas, complainants, vs. Atty. Edna V. Maceda, Ernesto V. Martinez, and Virgilio D. Lentejas, Jr., respondents.

FACTS

The administrative complaint stemmed from a protracted land dispute between the heirs of Fabian Moreno and Josefina Gualberto. The litigation culminated in Civil Case No. 90-09-163 for quieting of title, which was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City, Branch 6, on the ground of res judicata. This dismissal was affirmed with finality by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, upon motion of the Gualbertos, the RTC, Branch 6, issued a writ and an amended writ of execution to place them in possession of the disputed lot.
The complainants, who are heirs of the Morenos, charged Atty. Edna V. Maceda (Branch Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 6), and Sheriffs Ernesto V. Martinez (Branch 6) and Virgilio D. Lentejas, Jr. (Branch 9) with usurpation of authority, falsification, and gross ignorance of the law. They alleged that the writ of execution falsely declared the Gualbertos as the lawful owners, even though the final judgment was merely a dismissal of the complaint. They further claimed the Branch Clerk falsified the writ by invoking orders from other civil cases not decided by Branch 6.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents are administratively liable for the acts complained of in relation to the issuance and implementation of the writ of execution.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Atty. Edna V. Maceda administratively liable but dismissed the charges against the sheriffs. For the Branch Clerk of Court, the Court emphasized that the preparation and issuance of a writ of execution is a delicate duty requiring a thorough understanding of the final judgment. A writ must conform strictly to the judgment decree; it cannot vary the terms or award matters not included. The Court found that the writ issued under Maceda’s responsibility went beyond the final judgment in Civil Case No. 90-09-163, which was a simple dismissal. By ordering the Gualbertos placed in possession, the writ effectively granted affirmative relief not contained in the final judgment. This constituted gross ignorance of the law and procedure. As a court officer charged with this ministerial duty, she failed to ensure the writ’s conformity with the judgment, warranting a fine of P10,000.00.
Conversely, the charges against Sheriffs Martinez and Lentejas were dismissed. The Court ruled that sheriffs, as ministerial officers, are not required to look beyond the writ or inquire into the correctness of the judgment. Their duty is to execute the order as issued by the court. The evidence showed they attempted to implement the writ but were instructed to stay its enforcement due to a pending motion. No substantial evidence was presented to prove they acted with malice or in bad faith. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties stands in the absence of competent evidence to the contrary.