A.M. No. P-92-768, August 28, 1995
Casiano Wenceslao vs. Restituto Madrazo, Deputy Sheriff, MTCC, Branch 7, Davao City

FACTS

Complainant Casiano Wenceslao charged respondent Deputy Sheriff Restituto Madrazo with grave abuse of authority and misconduct in implementing a demolition order in a forcible entry case. The charges stemmed from Madrazo’s execution of a writ of demolition on April 1, 14, and 22, 1992. Wenceslao alleged that Madrazo implemented the order without prior service of a copy to his counsel, carted away the demolished materials (lumber and bamboo) to the plaintiff’s bodega, failed to inventory or issue receipts for these materials, and neglected to file a return of service with the court.
In his defense, Madrazo contended that he gave the defendants time to voluntarily comply, presumed proper service of the order was done by the process server, and deposited the numerous materials for safekeeping with the plaintiff’s representative due to a lack of safe storage. He also argued that a pending motion to hold the return in abeyance excused his failure to submit a return and that his duty to enforce the order was merely ministerial.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Restituto Madrazo is guilty of grave abuse of authority and misconduct in the performance of his official duties.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of misconduct and grave abuse of authority. The Court emphasized that sheriffs, as ministerial officers, must execute orders strictly within their defined authority. Here, Madrazo exceeded the scope of the demolition order, which only authorized the destruction and removal of structures. By carting away the demolished materials—property still owned by the defendants—to the plaintiff’s bodega without issuing receipts or an inventory, he arrogated powers not granted by the writ. This act constituted a usurpation of judicial prerogative.
Furthermore, his failure to file a return of service within the period mandated by Supreme Court Circular No. 12 was inexcusable. A pending motion filed by a party does not relieve a sheriff of this mandatory administrative duty. His defense that the duty to serve copies lay with the process server did not absolve him, as he implemented the order without verifying proper service, demonstrating a lack of circumspection. While the Court considered his claim that the materials were stored for safekeeping, his overall actions displayed a disregard for proper procedure and the property rights of the defendants. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 with a stern warning.