Facts:

This case, titled Sabino L. Aranda, Jr. vs. Teodoro S. Alvarez and Roderick O. Abaigar, was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on November 10, 2008, concerning an administrative complaint filed against the sheriffs for misconduct during the execution of a writ of demolition. The complainant, Sabino L. Aranda, Jr., was one of the plaintiffs in an ejectment case, Civil Case No. 2903, filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) Branch 79, Las Piñas City. The MTC ruled in favor of Aranda, a decision that was upheld by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 253, Las Piñas City.

Following the RTC decision, Judge Pio M. Pasia of the MTC issued an alias writ of demolition on May 17, 1999, directing Sheriff Roderick O. Abaigar to demolish unauthorized structures on the Aranda property. Sheriff Abaigar reported that on June 25 and July 5, 1999, he had implemented the writ, issuing a notice to vacate the premises. However, Sabino L. Aranda filed a complaint with the Office

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Sabino L. Aranda, Jr. was a plaintiff in an ejectment case pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Branch 79, Las Pinas City, which later was decided in his favor by both the MTC and the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 253, Las Pinas City.
• On 17 May 1999, Judge Pio M. Pasia of the MTC issued an alias writ of demolition commanding the demolition of improvements on the Aranda property.

Implementation of the Demolition

• Sheriff Roderick O. Abaigar of the MTC executed the writ by issuing a notice to vacate on 3 June 1999 and subsequently ejecting the unlawful occupants from the property.
• In compliance, the sheriff’s report dated 5 July 1999 indicated that the alias writ of demolition had been implemented, with photographic evidence taken on 25 June 1999 and 5 July 1999 serving as support.

Allegations Raised by the Complainant

• On 6 March 2000, in a letter-complaint submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Aranda charged Sheriff Teodoro S. Alvarez (of the RTC) and Sheriff Roderick O. Abaigar (of the MTC) with falsification of official document and grave misconduct.
• The allegations centered on two points:
• The sheriffs’ report falsely stated that the writ had been carried out when, according to Aranda, it had not.
• The sheriffs had demanded and received an amount of P40,000 as payment for the implementation of the writ, which Aranda claimed was unapproved.
• Respondents, through their Comment dated 8 February 2000, contended that:
• They had fully and without delay executed the alias writ of demolition.
• The amount of P40,000 was received from Mr. Deogracias L. Aranda, Jr. to cover expenses associated with the demolition, such as food, transportation, and fees for the demolition team.

Investigations and Reports

• On 3 April 2002, the Court directed Judge Joselito dj. Vibandor, Executive Judge of the RTC, to obtain the comments of Alvarez and Abaigar, conduct an investigation, and submit his findings.
• Judge Vibandor’s Report (dated 21 July 2004) found:
• The sheriffs violated Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court when they demanded and received P40,000.
• They admitted to receiving the amount in installments, including a payment the day before the implementation of the writ, without having prepared a written estimate or securing court approval.
• A subsequent Report dated 2 June 2005 by Judge Vibandor cleared the sheriffs of the charge of falsification of the sheriff’s report based on corroborative testimony, particularly that of Felisa Aranda, the complainant’s wife.
• The OCA, in its Report dated 11 April 2006, concluded that:
• While Alvarez and Abaigar did not commit falsification of an official document, they erred in unilaterally demanding and receiving the P40,000 without adhering to the mandated procedural safeguards.
• They were found guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Prior Conduct and Past Issues

• The case narrative also referenced past misconduct by the respondents, including previous decisions where a sheriff was found guilty of similar violations concerning unauthorized collection of fees for the execution of demolition writs.

Issue:

Falsification of Official Document

• Whether Sheriffs Alvarez and Abaigar falsified the sheriff’s report by stating that the alias writ of demolition was successfully implemented when it allegedly was not.

Misappropriation of Funds and Procedural Violations

• Whether the respondents violated Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court by:
• Failing to prepare and submit a written estimate of expenses.
• Not obtaining the court’s approval for the estimated expenses.
• Unilaterally demanding and receiving an amount (P40,000) far exceeding the allowed P300 for executing writs and for covering designated expenses.
• Whether the acceptance of a voluntary payment from the party (complainant) could justify or excuse the failure to follow the mandatory procedural steps.

Consequences of Their Actions

• Whether such actions, even if used to defray costs for demolition, amount to dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)