G.R. No. A.M. No. P-06-2257. May 29, 2007. SPS. ARTHUR & LEONORA STILGROVE, Complainants, vs. ERIBERTO SABAS, in his capacity as Clerk of Court and EX-OFICIO Sheriff, and ERNESTO SIMPLICIANO, in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff, both of the Municipal Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City, Respondents.
FACTS

This administrative case originated from a complaint filed by spouses Arthur and Leonora Stilgrove against respondents Eriberto Sabas, Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, and Ernesto Simpliciano, Deputy Sheriff, of the Municipal Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City. The complaint stemmed from the demolition of a structure allegedly owned by the Stilgroves, which was carried out by the respondents in the implementation of a writ of execution. The Stilgroves accused the respondents of grave abuse of authority, conduct unbecoming of court personnel, and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
In a Resolution dated November 29, 2006, the Supreme Court found respondent Sabas guilty of Grave Abuse of Authority and Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Personnel and imposed a penalty. Respondent Simpliciano was exonerated. Sabas filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that a subsequent civil case (Civil Case No. 1681) found the Stilgroves to have encroached on the property where the demolished structure was erected, which he contended should render the administrative case moot.

ISSUE

Whether the subsequent finding in a civil case that the complainants were encroachers renders the administrative case against respondent Sabas moot and academic, thereby warranting a reversal of his administrative liability.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the motion for reconsideration only to modify the penalty but upheld its finding of administrative liability against Sabas. The Court ruled that the subsequent civil case finding does not moot the administrative complaint. The determinative factor for administrative liability is the respondent’s conduct at the time of the act in question. At the time of the demolition, the Stilgroves were at least the presumptive owners of the lot, holding a possessory right that warranted due process and proper procedure in the enforcement of the writ. Sabas’s actions in carrying out the demolition, under the circumstances as previously established, constituted grave abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming of a court officer, irrespective of the later civil ruling on property ownership. The administrative case focuses on the propriety of a court employee’s actions in the performance of official duties, not on the ultimate resolution of the underlying property dispute. The Court modified the dispositive portion only to specify that the fine imposed on Sabas—equivalent to six months’ salary plus an amount corresponding to fifteen days of leave credits—is deductible from his retirement pay. The charges against Simpliciano remained dismissed, and the graft charges were referred for further investigation.