G.R. No. A.M. No. P-07-2327; July 12, 2007
Nena Gimena Solway, Complainant, vs. Ariel R. Pascasio, Michael P. Uclaray, and Benjamin M. Tulio, Sheriffs III, MTCC, Olongapo City, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Nena Gimena Solway leased a building from Ely Palenzuela. A dispute over rental terms was brought before the Barangay Lupon, resulting in an Amicable Settlement dated January 28, 2004. The settlement set a monthly rental and required complainant to pay a lump sum. Subsequently, Barangay Chairman Carlito A. Baloy, Palenzuela’s brother, issued a Notice of Execution. On February 9 and 10, 2004, respondents Sheriff Ariel Pascasio and Michael Uclaray, presenting this Notice, pressured complainant to sign it, which she eventually did out of fear.
On February 20, 2004, respondents Pascasio, Uclaray, and Benjamin Tulio, accompanied by others, went to complainant’s restaurant. Upon the barangay chairman’s order, they physically removed complainant’s properties from the premises, padlocked the rooms, and ejected customers. Complainant filed an administrative complaint for Abuse of Authority and Harassment, arguing there was no court order authorizing such execution. Respondents, in their joint comment, admitted their presence but claimed they were merely instructed by their Clerk of Court to observe and assist in securing compliance with the amicable settlement as witnesses.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for their actions in enforcing the Barangay Amicable Settlement.

RULING

Yes, respondents are administratively liable for misconduct. The Supreme Court found that respondents exceeded their authority and violated procedural rules. Under Section 417 of the Local Government Code, an amicable settlement or arbitration award from the Barangay Lupon can only be enforced by the Lupon itself via execution within six months from the date of settlement. After this period, enforcement requires filing an action in the proper city or municipal court. No such court action was initiated here; the barangay chairman’s mere request for assistance did not confer jurisdiction upon the MTCC or authorize judicial officers to act.
The Court emphasized that a sheriff’s mere presence at an execution where the court has no jurisdiction is improper, as it creates an appearance of official court sanction. Here, respondents’ active participation—pressuring complainant to sign the notice and physically ejecting her and her properties—was a more grievous act. It gave the false impression that the execution was under a lawful court order, which it was not. Their defense of merely following instructions from a superior does not absolve them, as sheriffs must perform their duties strictly in accordance with law and proper judicial writs. Consequently, the Court found them guilty of misconduct and suspended all three respondents for three months without pay, with a stern warning.