AM P 12 3064; (June, 2012) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-12-3064; June 18, 2012
RICARDO O. DELA CRUZ, ET AL., Complainants, vs. MA. CONSUELO JOIE A. FAJARDO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 93, San Pedro, Laguna, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainants were employees of Viva Footwear Corporation. Respondent Sheriff Fajardo implemented a Writ of Possession issued by the RTC in favor of the Philippine National Bank (PNB), which had foreclosed on Viva’s mortgage. Complainants alleged that respondent forcefully evicted them after only a three-day notice, levied on properties they claimed were exempt from execution, and wrongfully applied the sale proceeds to PNB, thereby depriving them of their unpaid wages and benefits from a labor dispute with Viva. They filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct, abuse of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the service.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent to file her comment. She failed to comply despite receiving the directive and a subsequent tracer. The Court then issued a show-cause order. Respondent eventually submitted a belated comment and apology, praying for dismissal of the charges. Complainants later manifested their willingness to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings, but respondent again failed to file a similar manifestation.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Fajardo is administratively liable for her actions in implementing the writ and for her failure to comply with the OCA’s and the Court’s directives.
RULING
The Court dismissed the administrative case against respondent concerning the implementation of the writ but found her guilty of gross insubordination. On the substantive charges, the Court affirmed the OCA’s finding that respondent committed no grave abuse of authority. The implementation of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty. The issues raised by complainants—particularly the alleged wrongful application of auction proceeds and the claim that certain properties were exempt—pertain to the preference of credits under the Civil Code. These are judicial in nature that cannot be resolved by a sheriff in the course of executing a writ, nor by the OCA in an administrative proceeding.
However, the Court found respondent liable for gross insubordination due to her repeated failure to comply with the directives of the OCA and the Court. Her non-compliance with the orders to file a comment and later a manifestation constituted willful disrespect. Her belated apology offered no explanation for the delays. Such indifference to lawful orders from superiors is a serious transgression for a court employee, who must exemplify respect and obedience. The Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) with a warning that a repetition would warrant a more severe penalty.