G.R. No. P-06-2194 August 31, 2006
Oriel G. Gonzales, et al. vs. Arnaldo V. Cabigao, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 74, Malabon City

FACTS

Complainant Oriel Gonzales, representing co-heirs and tenants, charged Sheriff Arnaldo Cabigao with grave abuse of authority. The charge stemmed from Civil Cases for Recovery of Possession where a 1990 Joint Decision ordered defendants to vacate properties. After the judgment became final, a Writ of Demolition was issued on July 8, 2005. However, on July 21, 2005, the trial court issued a subsequent Order directing the sheriff to defer the implementation of that writ pending resolution of pending incidents.
Complainant alleged that on July 22, 2005, respondent sheriff, in collusion with the plaintiff’s counsel, proceeded with the demolition of the subject properties in direct violation of the court’s July 21 Order to defer. Respondent sheriff defended his actions as ministerial, necessary to implement the final 1990 Decision and Writ of Execution, and claimed the demolition was done after proper notices. He further argued the complaint was an attempt to re-litigate settled issues.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Arnaldo Cabigao is administratively liable for proceeding with the demolition despite a court order directing him to defer implementation.

RULING

Yes, respondent is liable for simple misconduct. The Supreme Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s findings. It is undisputed that the trial court issued a lawful Order on July 21, 2005, directing the sheriff to defer the demolition. Respondent’s implementation of the writ the very next day constituted a direct disobedience of this explicit judicial directive.
The Court rejected respondent’s defense that his duty was merely ministerial under the final judgment and writ. While sheriffs must execute writs promptly, this duty is not absolute and must yield to subsequent lawful orders from the court. Respondent’s claim that he was not confronted with the deferral order was deemed unbelievable; a prudent sheriff should have verified the existence of such an order before proceeding. Sheriffs are officers of the court and agents of the law, required to discharge their duties with utmost care and diligence. By acting in contravention of a valid court order, respondent failed in this duty and undermined public faith in the judiciary’s processes.
Accordingly, respondent was found GUILTY of simple misconduct and fined Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a stern warning.