G.R. No. P-06-2257. March 28, 2008.
Arthur and Leonora Stilgrove, Complainants, vs. Clerk of Court Eriberto R. Sabas and Sheriff III Ernesto Simpliciano, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents, Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff Eriberto Sabas and Deputy Sheriff Ernesto Simpliciano, implemented a Special Order for Demolition issued by the MTC of Puerto Princesa City in a recovery of possession case (Civil Case No. 1311) involving Lot No. 18553. During execution, the demolition team, over the vehement protests of complainants Arthur and Leonora Stilgrove, proceeded to demolish a fence and a portion of the Stilgroves’ house situated on the adjacent Lot No. 18556, which was not the subject of the litigation. Respondent Sabas also shouted at Arthur Stilgrove, “Return to your country, for you are not welcome here!” This prompted the Stilgroves to file an administrative complaint for Grave Abuse of Authority and Conduct Unbecoming a Court Personnel, as well as a separate complaint for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019).

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for Grave Abuse of Authority and Conduct Unbecoming a Court Personnel, and whether they violated R.A. No. 3019.

RULING

The Court found respondent Sabas GUILTY of Grave Abuse of Authority and Conduct Unbecoming a Court Personnel, but DISMISSED the charges under R.A. No. 3019 against both respondents. The legal logic is bifurcated. First, on administrative liability, Sabas exceeded the scope of the court’s demolition order, which was limited to Lot No. 18553. By demolishing structures on the adjacent Lot No. 18556, he acted with grave abuse of authority. His derogatory remark, exploiting Stilgrove’s foreign status, constituted conduct grossly prejudicial to the dignity of the judiciary. For these acts, a fine equivalent to one month’s salary, deductible from his retirement pay, was imposed. Simpliciano’s administrative liability was dismissed as he was merely following Sabas’s orders. Second, on the graft charges, the Court applied the doctrine from Layus v. Sandiganbayan, which holds that a public officer is not liable under R.A. No. 3019 if they acted in good faith under a justifiable belief that they were empowered to perform the act. The investigation established that respondents relied on a relocation survey indicating an encroachment, which provided a justifiable basis for their belief that the demolished structures were on Lot No. 18553. Absent clear evidence of corrupt intent or evident bad faith, the elements of violations under Sections 3(a), 3(e), and 4(b) of R.A. No. 3019 were not met.