AM P 05 2008; (June, 2005) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-05-2008; June 21, 2005
Spouses Prescilo and Gomersinda Tagaloguin, complainants, vs. Conrado V. Hingco Jr., Deputy Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court (Branch 7), Tubod, Lanao del Norte, respondent.
FACTS
The complainants, Spouses Tagaloguin, were defendants in a forcible entry case where the plaintiff, Asuncion Alvia, ultimately prevailed on appeal. The Regional Trial Court decision ordered the spouses to pay damages and to restore Alvia’s possession of a specific property, Lot 6. A writ of execution was issued. Respondent Sheriff Hingco Jr. was tasked with implementing this writ. In the course of execution, however, Sheriff Hingco levied upon and caused the demolition of structures on a different parcel of land, Lot 7, which was owned by the complainants and was not the subject of the litigation. The complainants alleged that this wrongful execution was done in bad faith and in conspiracy with the opposing party.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Conrado V. Hingco Jr. is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of execution.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable, but for Simple Neglect of Duty and Incompetence, not for Gross Misconduct or oppression. The Supreme Court emphasized that sheriffs, as frontline officers of the judiciary, must discharge their duties with utmost care, diligence, and above suspicion to preserve public trust. The core legal principle applied is that a sheriff’s duty in executing a writ is ministerial; he must implement the directive strictly in accordance with the judgment and the writ’s specific terms. Here, Sheriff Hingco failed in this fundamental duty. He executed the judgment on the wrong property (Lot 7 instead of Lot 6), demonstrating a clear deviation from the court’s order. This failure constitutes neglect of duty and incompetence in the performance of his official functions.
However, the Court found the evidence insufficient to prove the allegations of conspiracy, bad faith, or oppression. There was no clear showing that respondent acted with malicious intent or in cahoots with the adverse party. His liability stems from negligence and failure to exercise due diligence in verifying the correct property subject to execution. Considering it was his first offense and the absence of proven ill motive, the Court modified the recommended penalty. Respondent Sheriff Conrado V. Hingco Jr. was found guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and Incompetence and was suspended for two months without pay, with a stern warning for any repetition.