A.M. No. P-12-3064 - Dela Cruz vs. Fajardo

Complainants, the employees of Viva Footwear Corporation (Viva), asserted that they suffered wrongful eviction and deprivation of their claims in a labor dispute over unpaid wages and benefits.
Respondent Ma. Consuelo Joie A. Fajardo served as Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 93, San Pedro, Laguna.

The case originated when the Philippine National Bank (PNB) foreclosed on Viva’s real estate mortgage, leading RTC Branch 93 to issue a Writ of Possession in favor of PNB.
Respondent Fajardo implemented the writ by forcefully evicting Viva’s officers and employees after a three-day notice period, an act which became the focus of the ensuing administrative proceedings.

Complainants contended that the eviction was carried out in a forceful and abrupt manner.
They alleged that respondent Fajardo wrongfully levied Viva’s properties, which were exempt from execution, and misapplied the proceeds from the auction sale toward satisfying PNB’s claims, thereby undermining their rights.
The wrongful execution allegedly impeded the employees’ pursuit of claims in their labor dispute with Viva.

On 17 June 2009, the complainants filed an affidavit with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), charging respondent with grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The OCA, on 29 June 2009, directed respondent Fajardo to submit her comment within 10 days.
Respondent failed to comply with the initial directive, leading the OCA to issue a first tracer on 14 September 2009, reiterating the requirement and warning of resolution without her explanation.
Continued noncompliance prompted the OCA on 17 December 2009 to formally recommend, through its First Division, the issuance of a show-cause order requiring her explanation within five days.

On 27 January 2010, the First Division adopted the recommendations of the OCA, formalizing the administrative process.
Respondent eventually submitted her comment on 02 March 2010 and apologized for her delay, pleading for the dismissal of the charges on the grounds of lack of merit.
The OCA, in its evaluation on 13 September 2010, found that respondent did not commit grave abuse of authority regarding the execution of the writ, recognizing that her role was purely ministerial once the writ was issued.
However, the OCA identified her repeated noncompliance with the court’s directives as indicative of gross insubordination, recommending a fine of ₱10,000 and the re-docketing of the case as a regular administrative matter.

On 1 December 2010, the Third Division required both parties to manifest whether they were willing to have the case decided on existing pleadings and records.
Complainants complied by filing their ex-parte manifestation on 1 March 2011, while respondent continued to fail in timely manifesting her position.
Consequently, on 13 February 2012, the court resolved to dispense with respondent’s manifestation and submitted the matter for decision based on the pleadings and records.

Whether respondent Fajardo committed grave abuse of authority in the implementation of the Writ of Possession against Viva.

This issue centers on the nature of the sheriff’s duties in executing a court-issued writ and whether exercising such duties in a ministerial capacity can amount to abuse of authority.
It also involves examining whether the actions taken by respondent overstepped her prescribed function under the law.

Whether respondent Fajardo should be held liable for gross insubordination due to her repeated failure to comply with the directives of the Office of the Court Administrator.

The issue assesses her noncompliance with the court’s and the OCA’s orders to submit a comment on the charges filed against her.
It tests the standard of conduct expected from judicial officers in obeying lawful orders and maintaining integrity within the judiciary.