G.R. No. P-05-2016. April 19, 2007
Pedro Salazar, Eustaquia Salazar and Teresita Salazar, Complainants, vs. Edmundo B. Barriga, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Cebu City, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case arose from two civil cases involving a property dispute between the complainants Salazars and Florentina Kintanar. In an unlawful detainer case, the MTCC ordered the Salazars to vacate the property, a decision ultimately affirmed. The MTCC later issued a writ of demolition. The Salazars filed a separate case for quieting of title, where the RTC initially issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the demolition. However, the RTC eventually dismissed the Salazars’ case and recalled the injunction.
Respondent Sheriff Barriga then visited the complainants, informing them of his intent to demolish the property, allegedly prompted by Kintanar’s promise of payment. The complainants pleaded for a delay as they intended to file a motion for reconsideration. According to the complainants, respondent demanded ₱50,000 to delay the demolition. Subsequently, the RTC granted the complainants’ urgent motion and issued an omnibus order restraining the demolition. Despite being informed of this order, respondent proceeded with the demolition.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Edmundo B. Barriga is administratively liable for Grave Misconduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of Grave Misconduct. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the investigating judge, who found respondent’s conduct indicative of corruption and a flagrant disregard of established rules. First, by insinuating that a ₱50,000 pay-off could defer the execution, respondent unlawfully used his official station for personal gain, constituting corruption. This act portrayed court personnel as extortionists who could manipulate court processes for a fee.
Second, his precipitous demolition of the property, despite being informed of the RTC’s restraining order, demonstrated a clear intent to violate the law and a reckless disregard of his duty to act with prudence and caution. He had a responsibility to verify the issuance of the order and to act humanely, but he instead proceeded with unusual alacrity, causing unnecessary damage. These acts collectively satisfy the elements of grave misconduct: intentional wrongdoing connected to official functions, involving corruption and a flagrant disregard of rules.
Considering his 33 years of service as a mitigating circumstance, the Court imposed a penalty of one-year suspension without pay and a fine of ₱20,000, with a stern warning.