A.M. No. P-03-1718. March 11, 2004.
Severino Nicdao, petitioner, vs. Silvestre J. Esguerra, Sheriff IV, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Severino Nicdao filed an administrative complaint for Abuse of Authority against Sheriff Silvestre Esguerra. Nicdao alleged that on December 27, 2002, the respondent sheriff, implementing a writ of demolition from the MTC of Paombong, Bulacan in an ejectment case, forcibly entered and demolished his house in his absence without a break-open order. Nicdao further claimed the sheriff confiscated his personal properties but only listed three items, failing to account for several others, including jewelry.
In his defense, Sheriff Esguerra asserted he served proper notices to vacate and that the demolition was lawfully implemented. He explained that on the date of implementation, the house was padlocked and unoccupied. He sought and obtained the assistance of police and barangay officials. An inventory of properties removed was made in their presence. He stated that Nicdao’s son, who arrived during the demolition, refused to secure the belongings, so the sheriff, with the plaintiff’s conformity, stored the inventoried items in an adjacent garage.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Silvestre Esguerra committed Abuse of Authority in implementing the alias writ of demolition.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint for lack of merit. The legal logic centers on the sheriff’s authority under a writ of execution and alias writ of demolition, which partakes of the nature of a habere facias possessionem. The Court cited jurisprudence, particularly Vda. de Tisado v. Tablizo, which authorizes a sheriff to employ necessary force to execute a lawful court order, especially when the premises are unoccupied. Here, it was undisputed that the house was padlocked and vacant when the sheriff arrived. Under these circumstances, no separate break-open order from the court was required for the sheriff to lawfully effect the demolition.
Regarding the alleged loss of personal properties, the Court found greater probative value in the inventory signed by the disinterested police officer and barangay officials who witnessed the proceedings, as opposed to Nicdao’s unsubstantiated list. The sheriff complied with procedural safeguards by seeking official assistance and creating a witnessed inventory. The Court noted that Nicdao had sufficient notice to secure his belongings but failed to do so. Consequently, the sheriff’s actions were within his lawful duties, and no abuse of authority was established.