G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-11-2932; May 30, 2011 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3412-P)
Case Parties/Title: ANGELITA D. MAYLAS, Complainant, vs. JUANCHO M. ESMERIA, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Masbate City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Angelita D. Maylas and her husband were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 5165 for quieting of title and recovery of possession. The RTC, Branch 46, Masbate City, rendered a Decision on November 25, 2005, ordering defendants-spouses Dolendo to pay the Maylas couple ₱23,000.00 for a destroyed house, declaring the Dolendos as possessors and owners of the lot where their house was being constructed, and ordering payment of attorney’s fees. On August 2, 2007, the court issued a writ of possession, which the complainant alleged was defective for not conforming to the decision’s dispositive portion. On the same day, respondent Sheriff Juancho M. Esmeria filed a motion for assistance of a geodetic engineer without furnishing copies to the parties, which the complainant claimed deprived them of an opportunity to oppose. The court granted the motion on August 3, 2007. The following day, the respondent filed an Officer’s Return stating that the Maylas couple had demolished half of the Dolendos’ house and constructed an apartment with barriers on the property. The complainant asserted this was a distortion of facts, as the property referenced (under her tax declaration) was not the litigated property (covered by her husband’s tax declaration), and accused the respondent of favoring the Dolendos. In his comment, the respondent denied the allegations, argued the complaint was harassive, stated the Maylas couple had taken the law into their own hands by demolishing part of the Dolendos’ house, and emphasized his duty to implement the writ was ministerial. He noted related cases filed by the Dolendos against the Maylas couple.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Juancho M. Esmeria should be held administratively liable for grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and incompetence based on the alleged irregularities in implementing the writ of possession and filing the Officer’s Return.

RULING

The Court DISMISSED the complaint for lack of merit, adopting the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) recommendation. The OCA found that the complainant’s accusations centered on an alleged distortion of facts in the Officer’s Return regarding which party caused demolition, which the respondent countered by explaining the Maylas couple’s actions after the decision. The OCA ruled that the alleged irregularities in implementing the writ of possession fell under the supervisory control of the trial court that issued the writ, citing settled jurisprudence that the issuing court has inherent power to correct errors of its ministerial officers and control its processes. Thus, the complainant should have first brought the matter before the RTC, Branch 46, Masbate City. Regarding the allegedly defective writ of possession, the OCA held this was judicial in nature and the respondent’s duty to implement it was purely ministerial. As to the motion for geodetic engineer assistance, the OCA noted it was granted by the court, and any due process concern should have been raised against the presiding judge or branch clerk of court, not the sheriff. The Court affirmed that the controversy stemmed from execution irregularities within the trial court’s supervisory purview and that the respondent sheriff’s role was limited to ministerial implementation of the court’s orders.