G.R. No. RTJ-05-1943. August 9, 2005
Remigia Sangil Vda. de Dizon, Virginia S. Laxamana and Josefina Laxamana-Montañer, Complainants, vs. Judge Salvador S. Tensuan and Rommel M. Ignacio, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 146, Makati City, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainants charged Judge Salvador S. Tensuan and Sheriff Rommel M. Ignacio with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross Incompetence, and related offenses concerning Civil Case No. 96-1187. The Court of Appeals had issued a decision ordering private respondent Mariano Talag and all persons acting under his behalf to cease and desist from managing, operating, harvesting, and/or selling products from certain fishponds pending the case’s resolution. Upon motion for execution, Judge Tensuan granted it and issued a writ of preliminary injunction on January 19, 2000.
The issued writ, however, contained a drastically inconsistent directive. It ordered Mariano Talag and his agents to “refrain from to ceased (sic) and desist from their act of illegal take over of possession of subject premises,” which deviated from the appellate court’s specific prohibitive order regarding management and operation. Complainants alleged that despite timely motions, Judge Tensuan refused to recall or correct the erroneous writ. Regarding Sheriff Ignacio, complainants alleged he served the writ upon the fishpond’s caretakers instead of directly upon Mariano Talag, compelled them to receive it, forced them to leave, and thereafter placed the opposing parties in possession of the property.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Salvador S. Tensuan and Sheriff Rommel M. Ignacio are administratively liable for their actions concerning the erroneous writ of preliminary injunction and its enforcement.

RULING

The case against Judge Tensuan was dismissed due to his demise during the pendency of the proceedings. Sheriff Rommel M. Ignacio was found GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty.
The Supreme Court emphasized that a sheriff’s duties are integral to the administration of justice, and they must be performed with competence and diligence. The investigation established that Sheriff Ignacio prepared the pro-forma writ by erroneously copying the prayer from the plaintiffs’ Motion for Execution instead of faithfully transcribing the dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals’ final decision. This error resulted in a writ with a substantially different and incorrect directive. While there was no evidence of bad faith, his failure to exercise due care and to ensure the writ’s accuracy constituted carelessness and indifference to his duty.
The legal logic is grounded on the principle that court processes, especially writs of execution or injunction implementing final judgments, must be issued and enforced with strict fidelity to the court’s directive. Any deviation, even if inadvertent, can subvert the orders of a higher court and undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings. By his careless preparation of the writ, Sheriff Ignacio failed to discharge his duties knowledgeably. Simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from carelessness or indifference, is a less grave offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases. For this first offense, the proper penalty is suspension. Accordingly, Sheriff Ignacio was suspended for three (3) months with a stern warning.