AM P 94 1025; (February, 1996) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-94-1025; February 20, 1996
Miguela Vda. de Tisado, petitioner, vs. Clerk of Court Prospero V. Tablizo, Dep. Sheriff Felinor R. Trampe, and Dep. Sheriff Carlos M. Ubalde, all of RTC – Virac, Catanduanes, respondents.
FACTS
The complainant was a prevailing party in an agrarian case where the defendants were ordered to reinstate her to a landholding. After years of non-enforcement, a revival of judgment was granted, and a writ of execution was issued. Respondent Deputy Sheriff Felinor R. Trampe was tasked with implementing the writ. During an execution attempt on July 6, 1993, Trampe turned over the property to the complainant, but the defendants, armed with a bolo, later re-entered the land, destroyed a fence, and prohibited entry. Trampe left the premises to avoid an untoward incident, returning the writ unsatisfied. Respondent Deputy Sheriff Carlos Ubalde admitted not executing a subsequent alias writ upon the verbal instruction of his superior, Clerk of Court Prospero Tablizo, who claimed he acted on verbal instructions from the presiding judge to hold the writ in abeyance pending a motion.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents are administratively liable for abuse of authority and misfeasance in the execution of a final judgment.
RULING
The Court found Deputy Sheriff Felinor R. Trampe GUILTY and suspended him for six months without pay. The charges against Clerk of Court Prospero Tablizo and Deputy Sheriff Carlos Ubalde were dismissed for lack of merit. The legal logic centers on the ministerial duty of a sheriff to execute writs promptly and with due diligence. The Court held that Trampe’s explanation for failing to enforce the writ—the defendants’ belligerent attitude and his desire to avoid an incident—was unacceptable. As an officer of the court, it was his duty to employ all reasonable means, such as seeking police assistance, to overcome defiance and complete the execution. His failure to do so constituted a dereliction of duty that eroded public trust in the judiciary’s ability to enforce its orders. Conversely, Tablizo and Ubalde were absolved because Ubalde’s non-action was based on a superior’s instruction, which was later shown to be aligned with a subsequent court order holding the writ in abeyance, negating any finding of bad faith or malfeasance on their part. The decision underscores that sheriffs must act above suspicion and cannot retreat from their duties due to mere threats or intimidation.