Vda. de Tisado v. Tablizo

A.M. No. P-94-1025 (February 20, 1996)

Facts:

The case involves a sworn administrative complaint filed by Miguela Vda. de Tisado against several court officials, including Clerk of Court Prospero V. Tablizo and Deputy Sheriffs Felinor R. Trampe and Carlos M. Ubalde, for alleged abuse of authority and malfeasance/misfeasance in the performance of their duties. The background of the case stems from Agrarian Case No. 267, where Miguela and her deceased husband were plaintiffs seeking reinstatement to their landholding. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision on November 10, 1983, ordering the defendants to reinstate the plaintiffs and to allow them to cultivate the land for three consecutive years to determine rental fees.

Despite several alias writs of execution issued to enforce this decision, the defendants failed to comply, leading to a revival of judgment in Civil Case No. 1576 on June 22, 1992. The court ordered the defendants to reinstate the plaintiffs to the landholding. Respondent Tablizo, as the ex-oficio provincial sheriff, issued a writ of execution on November 4, 1992. However, the defendants were held in contempt of court for their refusal to comply with the writ, resulting in their imprisonment until they surrendered possession of the land.

After their release, further attempts to execute the writ were made, but Deputy Sheriff Trampe reported that he could not enforce the writ due to the defendants' defiance. On November 3, 1993, Deputy Sheriff Ubalde was instructed by Tablizo to refrain from executing the writ pending a ruling on a motion to quash filed by the defendants.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether Deputy Sheriff Felinor R. Trampe was remiss in his duties by failing to enforce the writ of execution.
2. Whether Deputy Sheriff Carlos Ubalde and Ex-Oficio Provincial Sheriff Prospero Tablizo should be held liable for their non-implementation of the writ.

Arguments:

• Complainant's Argument: Miguela alleged that the respondents failed to enforce the court's decision and the writ of execution, demonstrating a lack of seriousness in their duties. She claimed that Trampe was not only ineffective but also encouraged her to abandon her claim to the land.

• Respondents' Defense:

  • Trampe: He argued that he attempted to enforce the writ but was met with hostility from the defendants, which led him to leave the premises to avoid violence. He contended that the complainants should have pursued contempt charges against the defendants instead of filing an administrative complaint.
  • Ubalde: He admitted to not executing the writ but claimed he was following Tablizo's instructions to hold it in abeyance until further notice.
  • Tablizo: He explained that he acted in good faith based on verbal instructions from the presiding judge to postpone the execution due to a pending motion to quash.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court found Deputy Sheriff Felinor R. Trampe guilty of failing to perform his duties effectively. The court emphasized that sheriffs must exert every effort to enforce court orders and that Trampe's actions contributed to the delay in the administration of justice. The court noted that Trampe's failure to anticipate the defendants' defiance and his lack of appropriate measures to enforce the writ were unacceptable.

In contrast, the court absolved Deputy Sheriff Carlos Ubalde and Ex-Oficio Provincial Sheriff Prospero Tablizo from administrative liability. The court recognized that Ubalde's refusal to execute the writ was justified as he was following Tablizo's instructions, which were based on the presiding judge's directive regarding the pending motion to quash. Tablizo's actions were also deemed appropriate as he acted in accordance with the court's instructions.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. Sheriffs have a ministerial duty to execute writs of execution promptly and effectively, and failure to do so can result in administrative liability.
2. The conduct of court officials, particularly those involved in the enforcement of judgments, must be above suspicion and characterized by propriety and decorum.
3. Instructions from superiors must be followed by subordinates unless they are clearly unlawful or contrary to the court's orders.