AM P 09 2644; (July, 2009) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-09-2644; July 30, 2009
EDGARDO A. QUILO, Complainant, vs. ROGELIO G. JUNDARINO, SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, MANILA, Respondent.
FACTS
The case originated from an unlawful detainer suit where the court issued a final and executory decision ordering the defendants and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate and demolish structures on a property at 2519 Granate St., Sta. Ana, Manila. A writ of execution was subsequently issued. Complainant Edgardo Quilo, residing at 2518 Granate St., alleged that respondent Sheriff Rogelio Jundarino, in implementing the writ, attempted to serve a “Notice to Pay/Vacate and Demolish Premises” upon him in February 2008. Quilo refused acceptance, noting the notice was addressed to 2519 Granate and he was not a named party. Quilo claimed the sheriff left the notice on the ground and made a threatening statement. In March 2008, Quilo further alleged the sheriff, accompanied by the plaintiff and around 15 men with demolition tools, forcibly entered his home while he was away, causing him and his wife distress.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Jundarino is administratively liable for Grave Misconduct, Oppression, Coercion, and Harassment in the implementation of the writ of execution.
RULING
The Supreme Court found Sheriff Jundarino liable for Simple Misconduct, not Grave Misconduct. The legal logic centers on the scope of a sheriff’s ministerial duty in executing a final judgment. A writ of execution must be implemented strictly in accordance with its mandate. The writ here commanded the sheriff to enforce the judgment against the defendants “and all persons claiming rights under them.” The Court ruled that while the sheriff had a duty to serve the notice on occupants of the subject property (2519 Granate), his actions toward Quilo at 2518 Granate exceeded this duty. By attempting to serve the notice at a different address and later entering that premises with a group, the sheriff failed to exercise the requisite prudence and circumspection, causing unwarranted anxiety to the complainant. However, the absence of proof of corrupt intent or willful violation of the law precluded a finding of grave misconduct. The Court emphasized that sheriffs, as frontline officers of the judiciary, must perform their duties with care and propriety to avoid abuse and preserve public confidence. Considering it was his first offense in 16 years of service, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to three months’ salary instead of suspension.