This case clarifies the ministerial duty of a Clerk of Court, acting as an Ex-Officio Sheriff, to enforce court-issued writs of execution and demolition. It underscores that even with property disputes or claimed errors, the sheriff must generally execute the court’s orders, especially when the court has already addressed those issues. Failure to do so constitutes dereliction of duty, potentially leading to administrative sanctions.

When Discretion Fails: A Sheriff’s Duty Amidst Property Confusion

The case of Brimel Bautista v. Abelardo B. Orque, Jr. arose from an administrative complaint filed by Brimel Bautista against Abelardo B. Orque, Jr., the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Tabaco City. Bautista accused Orque of neglect of duty and/or incompetence for his refusal to enforce several writs issued by the MTCC in various ejectment cases. These writs included a Writ of Execution and a Writ of Demolition in Civil Case No. 68, as well as Writs of Execution in Civil Cases No. 64, 66, and 67.

Bautista’s complaint centered on Orque’s inaction, which he argued caused undue delay in the execution of the court’s orders. He highlighted that in Civil Case No. 68, Orque failed to act promptly on the Writ of Execution, even after the issuance of the Writ of Demolition. This delay, according to Bautista, allowed the defendants to file a motion for reconsideration, further hindering the process. Even after the denial of this motion, Orque allegedly refused to enforce the Writ of Demolition, citing an error in the identification of the lot subject to the suit as his reason in a Sheriff’s Report.

Orque defended his actions by claiming he exercised prudence and caution. He argued that he discovered Lot No. 270, the property mentioned in the writ, was owned by other parties, not the complainant. However, the Court scrutinized this defense, noting that the MTCC had already addressed this issue in its Order of January 18, 2005, stating that the defendants admitted in their Answer that the property in question was the Satellite Market, thereby correcting the initial error. The Court emphasized the ministerial duty of a sheriff in enforcing writs. It cited prior jurisprudence affirming that a sheriff’s duty is not discretionary but rather to execute the writs placed in their hands with diligence and dispatch.

The Court referred to Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, outlining the procedure when property levied is claimed by a third person. It states:

Sec. 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person. – If the property levied on is claimed by any person other than the judgment obligor or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer making the levy and a copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, unless such judgment obligee, on demand of the officer, files a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on.

Despite these findings, the Court considered mitigating factors in determining the appropriate penalty. The Court noted the initial error in the lot number, even if it was addressed during the pre-trial, and the relatively short period of delay, alongside Orque’s long service in the judiciary. Thus, the Court found Orque guilty of dereliction of duty. However, he was not sanctioned to the full extent, considering some factors that merit a tempered penalty for the respondent.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Clerk of Court, acting as Ex-Officio Sheriff, was justified in refusing to enforce a writ of demolition due to a claimed error in the property description.
What is a writ of demolition?	A writ of demolition is a court order authorizing the removal or destruction of structures on a property, typically issued after an ejectment case.
What does “ministerial duty” mean for a sheriff?	A “ministerial duty” means the sheriff has a clear legal obligation to perform a task, like enforcing a writ, without exercising discretion or personal judgment.
Why was the sheriff found guilty of dereliction of duty?	The sheriff was found guilty because he failed to enforce the writ despite the court already addressing and correcting the alleged property description error.
What mitigating factors did the Court consider?	The Court considered the initial error in the lot number, the relatively short delay, and the sheriff’s long service in the judiciary as mitigating factors.
What is the significance of Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court?	Rule 39, Section 16 provides the procedure to be followed when a third party claims ownership of the property being levied, which the sheriff did not follow.
What was the penalty imposed on the sheriff?	The sheriff was fined P4,000.00 and given a warning that any future similar offenses would be dealt with more severely.
Was the complainant awarded monetary damages?	No, the decision does not specify monetary damages awarded to the complainant; the case focused on the administrative liability of the sheriff.

This case underscores the importance of diligence in the execution of court orders and clarifies the extent to which a sheriff can exercise discretion when enforcing a writ. It serves as a reminder that the prompt and efficient implementation of judicial decisions is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the legal system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: BRIMEL BAUTISTA VS. CLERK OF COURT ABELARDO B. ORQUE, JR., A.M. NO. P-05-2099, October 31, 2006