A.M. No. P-94-1019 - Pelgone vs. Espartinez

Complainant Arturo Q. Pelgone filed a letter-complaint on 18 February 1994, alleging that respondent Sheriff Rodolfo M. Espartinez committed grave abuse of authority amounting to gross misconduct.
The complaint arose from an ongoing dispute involving oppositors in LRC Case No. N-400 concerning the registration and possession of three parcels of land awarded to Felisa Marbella.

On 11 October 1984, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5, Legazpi City rendered a decision granting the registration of the subject land parcels in the name of Felisa Marbella, which became final and executory.
On 08 February 1993, the RTC issued a writ of possession, directing respondent Sheriff to deliver possession to Marbella and ordering the oppositors to vacate the property within twenty (20) days from notice.
Following the oppositors’ failure to vacate, a motion by Marbella led to the issuance of a writ of demolition on 15 December 1993, which mandated the removal of all improvements and constructions on the property.
The writ of demolition, served on 20 December 1993, contained an order for the oppositors to vacate the premises within twenty (20) days, later extended to thirty days (until 20 January 1994) due to holiday considerations.

On 24 January 1994, respondent Sheriff, accompanied by police officers and demolition team members, proceeded to demolish the house of the complainant and another property belonging to Romualdo Magas.
Prior to commencing, the complainant allegedly requested a short delay to retrieve a snack; respondent Sheriff acquiesced temporarily. However, upon the complainant's return, he found that the demolition had already been executed.
Evidence of the demolition included:

Removal and sawing off of a steel gate and twelve wooden beams.
Ten pieces of G.I. sheets torn rendering them useless, and twenty pieces of lawanit board detached.
The area was subsequently fenced off to prevent the complainant from retrieving demolition debris, water pipes, and hollow blocks.

The demolition work spanned approximately three days, during which complainant and his workers (including a plumber) assisted in removing fixtures such as plumbing installations, water pump, and pipes.
On 31 January 1994, respondent delivered physical possession of two lots (with Lot No. 2 acquired by Veronica Miranda and Rosita Olavario) to Felisa Marbella, which was acknowledged by her daughter, Fem Julia E. Paladin.
A return of the demolition proceedings was submitted by the respondent on 02 February 1994.

Respondent Sheriff explained that, on the morning of 24 January 1994, he and a fellow sheriff left for Barangay Ilawod, Guinobatan, Albay, where the demolition was to occur.
Barangay Captain Nancy Salting was requested to be present; she went to the complainant’s residence to notify him, but the complainant maintained he had already been informed.
Upon arriving at the site around nine o’clock, the demolition team found the property gate padlocked. After waiting for the complainant’s arrival and his failure to appear, the team broke open the padlock to gain entry and proceed with the demolition.
Throughout the demolition, the removal of structures was performed with care: window jalousies were detached first to avoid breakage, trusses and beams were cautiously dismantled, and concrete walls and the fence were smashed when no other method was viable.
Multiple affidavits, including those from Barangay Captain Nancy M. Salting, Sheriff Angel C. Conejero, PO3 Tobias B. Rabe, Jr., SPO1 Rodrigo P. Paraiso, municipal employee Dioscoro Acabado, Jr., and demolition team members, supported the assertion that the demolition was executed without wanton or reckless conduct by the respondent.

In its memorandum dated 21 October 1994, the Office of the Court Administrator evaluated the case and concluded that respondent Sheriff did not abuse his authority in the demolition process.
However, it was found that the respondent was remiss in breaking open the main gate (and destroying the padlock) without first securing a court-issued break-open order.
The memorandum’s findings were in line with both the evidence before the court and the applicable jurisprudence, specifically referencing Wearever Textile Mills, Inc. vs. Bagaybagayan.

Whether respondent Sheriff exceeded the bounds of his authority by forcibly breaking open the padlocked gate without obtaining a court-issued break-open order.
Whether the method and manner of executing the writ of demolition, notably the breaking of the padlock, constituted grave abuse of authority amounting to gross misconduct.
Whether the procedural lapse in failing to secure specific judicial authorization (for a break-open order) despite otherwise careful demolition procedures warranted disciplinary sanction.