A.M. No. P-211 May 31, 1974
DR. QUINTIN DE DIOS SANTOS, complainant, vs. ALBERTO A. VALINO, Deputy Sheriff, Pasig, Rizal, respondent.

FACTS

The complainant, Dr. Quintin de Dios Santos, filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Alberto A. Valino for the alleged injudicious implementation of a demolition order. The order stemmed from a final and executory ejectment judgment against Santos, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. On December 13, 1972, the Court of First Instance issued an order directing the sheriff to immediately enforce a prior demolition writ dated September 18, 1972. Respondent Valino notified Santos on December 27, 1972, and commenced the demolition on December 29, 1972, during the Christmas holidays. The demolition was not completed that day, and the court later granted Santos a 30-day extension for voluntary demolition starting January 27, 1973. Santos contended that the sheriff acted injudiciously by proceeding with the demolition despite the holiday season and while a motion to hold the order in abeyance was pending.

ISSUE

Whether or not Deputy Sheriff Alberto A. Valino acted injudiciously or abused his authority in implementing the demolition order on December 29, 1972.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint, finding no injudiciousness or abuse of authority on the part of Respondent Valino. The Court concurred with the investigating judge’s report, emphasizing the ministerial nature of a sheriff’s duty in executing clear and lawful court orders. The legal logic is that a sheriff, as a ministerial officer, has no discretion to modify the terms or timing of a writ; his duty is to enforce it promptly upon receipt unless specifically countermanded by the issuing court. At the time of implementation, the demolition order of December 13, 1972, was valid, subsisting, and not recalled. The Court reasoned that allowing the execution of final judgments to be delayed merely by the filing of motions, however frivolous, would frustrate the judicial process and deprive prevailing parties of their rights. The Court noted that Santos himself, through protracted litigation, had delayed the execution for nearly ten years, and his situation during the holidays was a consequence of his own obstinacy, not the sheriff’s malfeasance. While acting with humanitarian consideration by postponing execution until after the New Year might have been preferable, Valino’s strict compliance with the court’s directive and the advice of his superior was not an abuse but a proper discharge of his official duty.