A.M. No. P-07-2322; April 23, 2010
Dalmacio Z. Tomboc, Complainant, vs. Sheriffs Liborio M. Velasco, Jr., Medar T. Padao, and Stephen R. Bengua, all of the Regional Trial Court, Dipolog City, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Dalmacio Tomboc filed an administrative complaint for abuse of authority against Sheriffs Liborio Velasco, Jr., Medar Padao, and Stephen Bengua. In 2003, Sheriff Velasco was assigned to implement a writ of demolition in a civil case covering only Lot Nos. 80-A and 81-A. Tomboc informed Velasco that his house was constructed on the adjacent Lot No. 81-B, which he acquired via a pacto de retro sale, and was therefore outside the writ’s scope. Velasco initially stated he would bring a surveyor. Despite this, on July 11, 2003, Velasco proceeded to demolish Tomboc’s house over his protests.
Respondents, in their defense, contended the demolition was a lawful implementation of a final judgment. They argued that Lot No. 81-B was part of a larger registered property owned by another individual, implying Tomboc had no valid claim. The investigating judge, however, found based on testimony, including that of a geodetic engineer, that Tomboc’s house was indeed on Lot 81-B, a lot not specified in the writ of demolition.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for the demolition of a structure not covered by the writ of execution.

RULING

The Court found Sheriff Liborio M. Velasco, Jr. GUILTY of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. The legal logic is anchored on the duty of sheriffs as public officers to perform their duties with due diligence and reasonable care, especially when individual rights are at stake. The writ of demolition was explicitly limited to Lot Nos. 80-A and 81-A. Velasco was personally informed by the complainant that the targeted structure was on Lot 81-B. His failure to exercise caution—by simply relying on the representation of the winning party instead of verifying the property boundaries through a relocation survey as initially indicated—constituted a neglect of this duty. This neglect directly caused the unlawful demolition of a property not subject to the court order.
The penalty for such inefficiency and incompetence for a first offense is suspension from six months and one day to one year. The Court modified the OCA’s recommendation and imposed a suspension of six months and one day without pay. The complaint against Sheriffs Padao and Bengua was DISMISSED. Velasco himself testified that the writ was assigned solely to him and that the other respondents, while present, did not participate in the demolition of Tomboc’s house, thus negating their administrative liability. The Court emphasized that sheriffs must act with utmost care to prevent the infringement of rights through official oversight.