A.M. No. P-19-3960 - Chua vs. Cordova

Emma R. Chua filed a complaint-affidavit on 4 July 2016 charging Sheriff Ronald C. Cordova with multiple administrative offenses, including grave abuse of discretion, grave abuse of authority, conduct unbecoming a public servant, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, grave misconduct, and a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
The complaint was connected to Civil Case No. 06-0114, where spouses Gerd and Sarah Gerbig had filed a civil suit against Odette R. Chua, daughter of Emma R. Chua, for enforcement of an easement, violation of the National Building Code, and damages.
The Office of the Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the Supreme Court because Sheriff Cordova, as a trial court employee of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las PiAas City, Branch 197, falls under its exclusive administrative jurisdiction.

On 4 March 2008, the RTC of Las PiAas City, Branch 197 issued both a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and a Writ of Execution in connection with Civil Case No. 06-0114.
On 10 March 2008, Odette filed a Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction.
On 14 April 2008, the trial court granted the motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction and simultaneously required Odette to secure a counter-bond in the amount of P800,000.00.
Chua received a copy of the court’s Order only on 18 April 2008, by which time arrangements for the counter-bond were still in progress.

On 25 April 2008, at around 4:00 p.m., Sheriff Cordova, accompanied by several men, entered the property and proceeded to demolish the firewall and the back portion of the house.
Chua alleged that during the demolition, Sheriff Cordova:

Failed to provide a copy of any writ of execution despite being confronted.
Mocked, insulted, and humiliated her and her deceased husband with degrading remarks.
Acted with impunity by carrying out the demolition over four days, resulting in damage to personal property (e.g., air-conditioning unit, washing machine, water pump, and plants).

Chua claimed that the demolition was intentionally conducted on a weekend and executed in a manner that disregarded propriety and good manners.

In his Comment dated 15 May 2017, Sheriff Cordova admitted that on 4 March 2008 the writs of preliminary injunction and execution were issued and noted the subsequent Order dissolving the preliminary injunction and conditioning it on the posting of a counter-bond.
He justified his actions on the basis that it was his ministerial duty to implement the writ of execution with reasonable celerity, asserting that his follow-ups and reminders to Chua and the City Engineer’s Office were within the scope of his responsibilities.
Sheriff Cordova denied allegations of abuse, misconduct, and any receipt of money or compensation, contending that the demolition expenses were borne by the opposing parties and that he exercised all necessary precautions to avoid additional damage.

In her Opposition to Comment dated 20 June 2017, Chua reiterated that the demolition was executed in a deliberate and inappropriate manner, particularly noting that it occurred on a weekend.
She emphasized that the court order dissolving the injunction did not specify a timeframe for posting the counter-bond, which contributed to the confusion and led to the premature demolition.
Chua stressed that the actions of Sheriff Cordova were tainted with deceit, bad faith, and a motive for material gain.

In its Report dated 22 February 2019, the OCA recommended re-docketing the administrative complaint as a regular administrative case against Sheriff Cordova.
The OCA found Sheriff Cordova liable for oppression (or grave abuse of authority) and for violating Section 6, Canon IV of A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC (the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel).
The recommended penalty was a suspension ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day up to one (1) year for the first offense, with a suggestion to convert the suspension into a fine of P30,000.00 to mitigate adverse effects on public service.

The Supreme Court adopted the OCA’s findings regarding Sheriff Cordova’s actions, noting his deviation from the prescribed ministerial functions.
The Court dismissed charges of conduct unbecoming a public servant, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 for lack of evidence.
Considering prior administrative cases and the seriousness of the offense (oppression and violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel), the Court imposed a penalty of suspension for one (1) year on Sheriff Cordova.

Whether Sheriff Cordova’s decision to proceed with the demolition after a court Order had dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction constitutes an act beyond his ministerial duty.
Whether his actions amount to oppression or grave abuse of authority, thereby justifying administrative sanctions.

Whether the separate allegations of conduct unbecoming a public servant, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of RA 3019 were adequately proven.
The role of evidence in determining if these additional charges should be sustained or dismissed.