A.M. No. P-16-3507. September 25, 2018.
CESAR T. DUQUE, complainant, vs. JAARMY G. BOLUS-ROMERO and MA. CONSUELO JOIE A. FAJARDO, Clerk of Court V and Sheriff IV, respectively, both of Branch 93, Regional Trial Court, San Pedro, Laguna, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Cesar T. Duque charged Clerk of Court Jaarmy G. Bolus-Romero and Sheriff Ma. Consuelo Joie A. Fajardo with falsification, inefficiency, and incompetence in relation to the execution of a judgment in Civil Case No. SPL-0823. Duque alleged that CoC Bolus-Romero pre-empted the presiding judge and altered the Court of Appeals’ final decision by issuing a writ of execution that wrongfully increased the legal interest rate from 6% to 12% per annum. He further accused Sheriff Fajardo of falsifying a Notice to Pay, issuing a defective levy on his real property without proper service, and conducting a sham auction sale based on a Notice of Sale that contained an incorrect title number for the property to be sold.
In her comment, CoC Bolus-Romero denied the charges, asserting she merely performed a ministerial duty by drafting the writ as directed by the presiding judge and copied the dispositive portions of the lower court and CA decisions verbatim. Sheriff Fajardo, despite two directives from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), failed to file any comment on the allegations against her.

ISSUE

Whether respondents CoC Bolus-Romero and Sheriff Fajardo are administratively liable for the acts complained of in relation to the execution proceedings.

RULING

The Court dismissed the charges against CoC Bolus-Romero but found Sheriff Fajardo guilty of gross inefficiency, incompetence, and simple neglect of duty. The legal logic is anchored on the distinct nature of their duties and the evidence presented. For CoC Bolus-Romero, the Court found no proof of falsification. The act of preparing and issuing the writ of execution, based on a directive from the presiding judge and a verbatim reproduction of the final judgment, is a ministerial function under Section 4, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court. There was no evidence she participated in or had knowledge of any subsequent irregular proceedings.
For Sheriff Fajardo, her failure to file a comment constituted an admission of the allegations. More critically, the substantive evidence established her administrative liability. The Notice of Sheriff’s Sale she issued contained a fatal error—an incorrect Torrens title number for the property to be sold. This omission invalidated the notice and the subsequent sale, as its purpose is to properly inform all interested parties. Such a fundamental mistake constitutes gross inefficiency and incompetence. Her overall conduct demonstrated a disregard for proper procedure and a neglect of her sworn duty to implement court orders with utmost care and fidelity. While the recommended penalty for these offenses was suspension, the Court imposed a fine of P50,000.00, as a prior separate administrative case had already resulted in her dismissal from service, rendering suspension moot.