A.M. No. RTJ-09-2186 & A.M. No. RTJ-09-2187, July 14, 2009
Atty. Nelson T. Antolin and Atty. Diosdado E. Trillana, Complainants, vs. Judge Alex L. Quiroz, Sheriff Edwin V. Garrobo, and Sheriff Mario Pangilinan, Respondents.

(Consolidated Administrative Cases)

FACTS

These consolidated administrative cases originated from the execution of a judgment in Civil Case No. 59264. The Court of Appeals, by a September 10, 2003 Decision, set aside an earlier order by Judge Alex L. Quiroz and directed him to issue a writ of execution against Philips Semiconductors, Philippines, Inc. (PSPI). In compliance, Judge Quiroz issued the writ on October 9, 2003, designating Sheriff Edwin Garrobo for implementation. Garrobo, assisted by Sheriff Mario Pangilinan, proceeded to enforce the writ on October 17, 2003.
During implementation, the counsels for PSPI, Atty. Nelson Antolin and Atty. Diosdado Trillana, intervened. They informed the sheriffs that the Court of Appeals’ September 10, 2003 Decision was not yet final and executory, as a motion for reconsideration was pending. They also furnished a copy of their motion to set aside Judge Quiroz’s October 9 order. The sheriffs proceeded with the levy nonetheless. This prompted the lawyers’ administrative complaint against Judge Quiroz and the sheriffs, assailing the issuance and enforcement of the writ as premature and void. In a separate but related administrative matter, Sheriff Garrobo filed a complaint against Judge Quiroz, which was consolidated for resolution.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether respondents Judge Quiroz and Sheriffs Garrobo and Pangilinan are administratively liable for issuing and implementing the writ of execution under the given circumstances.

RULING

The Court dismissed all administrative complaints. Regarding Judge Quiroz, the Court emphasized that an administrative complaint is not the proper remedy to correct an allegedly erroneous order if a judicial remedy exists. His issuance of the writ was a judicial act in purported compliance with a directive from the Court of Appeals. Any error in his judgment should be addressed through appropriate judicial channels, not an administrative proceeding.
Concerning the sheriffs, the Court ruled they committed no administrative infraction. A sheriff’s duty to execute a valid writ is ministerial. They are not authorized to suspend its implementation based on their own assessment of its validity. At the time of enforcement on October 17, 2003, no restraining order from the Court of Appeals was yet in effect; a temporary restraining order was issued only four days later, on October 21. Therefore, the sheriffs were legally obligated to proceed. The Court held that sheriffs cannot be faulted for performing their ministerial duty, even if the writ they enforce is later found to be improvidently issued. Their role is to execute, not to adjudicate. The complaints, being unsubstantiated by sufficient evidence, warranted dismissal.