G.R. No. P-06-2224; April 30, 2010
Atty. Alberto II Borbon Reyes, Complainant, vs. Clerk of Court V Richard C. Jamora, Deputy Sheriff IV Lucito Alejo, and Clerk III Eulogio T. Mondido, all of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, Makati City, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Alberto II Borbon Reyes, counsel for a defendant in Civil Case No. 01-887, filed an administrative complaint for Usurpation of Authority and Grave Abuse of Authority against respondents. The complaint stemmed from the execution of a December 9, 2004 decision which had become final on June 17, 2005. Respondent Jamora, as Branch Clerk of Court, issued a Writ of Execution on June 29, 2005. Respondent Alejo, the Deputy Sheriff, implemented the writ, levying on properties. Complainant, unaware of the writ, filed a petition for relief from judgment on July 4, 2005, which was later granted by a pairing judge in November 2005, ordering a desistance from implementation. Complainant alleged the writ was issued without authority, that its implementation involved an over-levy, and that respondent Mondido lost the copy of the petition for relief. He accused the respondents of connivance to prejudice his client’s rights.
In their Comments, respondents denied any collusion. Jamora asserted he issued the writ pursuant to a court order. Alejo explained he was performing a ministerial duty to implement a valid writ, as there was no restraining order at the time of the auction, and defended the levy amount by detailing the total judgment obligation. Mondido denied receiving the petition, stating he handled only criminal cases and that another staff member was in charge of civil case records. The Office of the Court Administrator referred the case for investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for Usurpation of Authority and Grave Abuse of Authority in connection with the issuance and implementation of the Writ of Execution.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint for lack of merit but ADMONISHED Sheriff Alejo regarding fee payments. The Court found the complainant’s allegations unsubstantiated. Jamora’s issuance of the Writ of Execution on June 29, 2005, was a regular performance of his duty as Branch Clerk of Court, and it was proven the writ existed before the petition for relief was filed. Alejo’s implementation was a mandatory ministerial duty; a sheriff must execute a valid writ with reasonable promptness and has no discretion to refuse absent a lawful order to the contrary. The claim of over-levy was rebutted by Alejo’s computation of the total solidary judgment debt. Mondido was correctly exonerated as evidence showed he was not the personnel who received or was responsible for the subject petition. The Court emphasized that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant, and bare allegations cannot overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. No substantial evidence of connivance or bad faith was presented. However, Alejo was admonished to be more vigilant in complying with the payment of legal fees under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court when implementing writs.