AM P 94 1019; (December, 1994) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-94-1019, December 13, 1994
Arturo Q. Pelgone, complainant, vs. Rodolfo M. Espartinez, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch V, Legaspi City, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Arturo Q. Pelgone, an oppositor in LRC Case No. N-400, charged respondent Sheriff Rodolfo M. Espartinez with grave abuse of authority and gross misconduct. The case involved parcels of land registered in favor of Felisa Marbella. After the decision became final, a writ of possession and later a writ of demolition were issued. The writ of demolition, served on December 20, 1993, directed the removal of improvements and gave the oppositors until January 20, 1994, to vacate.
On January 24, 1994, respondent Sheriff, with police officers, proceeded to demolish complainant’s house. Complainant alleged that after he requested a brief delay, he returned to find his property already demolished, with materials carelessly destroyed and the area fenced off to prevent him from retrieving his items. Respondent Sheriff, in his comment, denied wanton conduct. He asserted that the Barangay Captain was present, the house was empty, and the demolition team exercised due care in removing structures over three days, with complainant and his workers even participating in removing certain fixtures.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff committed grave abuse of authority or gross misconduct in implementing the writ of demolition.
RULING
The Court found respondent Sheriff not guilty of grave abuse of authority or gross misconduct in the manner of carrying out the demolition itself. The evidence, including supporting affidavits, showed that the demolition team observed due care in removing the structures, and complainant was present and participated during the process. The allegations of wanton destruction were not substantiated.
However, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that respondent was remiss in his duty for forcing open the padlocked gate without first securing a break-open order from the court. This omission constituted a lack of circumspection in the proper execution of the writ. While not amounting to gross misconduct, it was a failure to adhere strictly to the required procedure for gaining entry when met with resistance (such as a locked gate) during enforcement. Therefore, respondent Sheriff was fined P1,000.00 for this shortcoming and cautioned against future similar lapses.