AM P 05 2073; (August, 2006) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-05-2073, August 29, 2006
Ruth A. Collado vs. Adonis L. Sevidal, Sheriff IV, RTC, Br. 44, Dagupan City
FACTS
The Philippine National Bank (PNB) foreclosed a mortgage on Lot No. 3544, obtained a writ of possession, and later a writ of demolition against the mortgagors and persons claiming under them. Respondent Sheriff Adonis L. Sevidal was tasked with implementing the writ of demolition. During execution, a relocation survey revealed that a portion of complainant Ruth Collado’s concrete fence and her brother’s house, located on the adjoining Lot No. 3557, encroached upon the foreclosed Lot No. 3544. Over Collado’s objections that these structures were within her own property, the sheriff proceeded with the demolition of the encroaching portions. Collado filed an administrative complaint, alleging the sheriff exceeded his authority, acted maliciously, and denied her due process as she was not a party to the underlying case.
ISSUE
Whether respondent sheriff is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of demolition.
RULING
Yes, the sheriff is liable for simple misconduct. The Supreme Court emphasized that the writs of possession and demolition were enforceable only against the mortgagor spouses and those claiming rights under them. Complainant Collado and her brother, as adverse claimants asserting ownership from a different lot, were not bound by these writs. As an officer charged with executing judgments, the sheriff must strictly adhere to the dispositive portion of the decision. His duty is to execute only what is decreed, acting with prudence and reasonable skill. The general language of the writ directing the demolition of “all structures” on the lot did not justify action against persons not party to the case. Upon encountering Collado’s objection and the lack of prior notice to her, the sheriff’s proper course was to suspend execution, make a partial return, and seek instructions from the issuing judge. His failure to do so constituted simple misconduct, warranting a fine of P5,000.00. The Court found no malice or corrupt motive but stressed the imperative for circumspection in the enforcement of court processes.