Tisado v. Tablizo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Miguela Vda. de Tisado and her deceased husband were plaintiffs in Agrarian Case No. 267, where a decision was rendered on November 10, 1983, ordering defendants-spouses to reinstate the plaintiffs to the landholding and for others not to interfere. The decision stipulated that plaintiffs would cultivate the land for three years to determine rental basis, and in the meantime, would give the landowners 25% of the net harvest. Procedural History: Despite several alias writs of execution, the decision in Agrarian Case No. 267 was not enforced. After five years, an action for revival of judgment was filed, resulting in a decision on June 22, 1992, reviving the execution of the original decision. Consequently, respondent Clerk of Court Prospero V. Tablizo, ex-oficio provincial sheriff, issued a writ of execution on November 4, 1992. The defendants were held in contempt for refusing to obey this writ and were imprisoned until they surrendered possession. After a month, they were released, and an alias writ of execution was issued on June 28, 1993. Respondent Deputy Sheriff Felinor R. Trampe attempted to execute this writ but failed, with the complainant alleging he was not serious and was convincing her to give up the land. Another alias writ was issued on September 30, 1993. On November 3, 1993, respondent Deputy Sheriff Carlos M. Ubalde refused to implement it, allegedly on instructions from respondent Tablizo to desist. The Petition: Complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondents Tablizo, Trampe, and Ubalde for abuse of authority and malfeasance/misfeasance of duty.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Felinor R. Trampe was remiss in the performance of his duties in enforcing the writ of execution. Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Carlos M. Ubalde and Ex-Oficio Provincial Sheriff Prospero V. Tablizo are liable for the non-implementation of the writ of execution scheduled on November 3, 1993.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Deputy Sheriff Felinor R. Trampe guilty as charged and suspended him for six (6) months without pay, with a stern warning. Respondents Deputy Sheriff Carlos M. Ubalde and Ex-Oficio Provincial Sheriff Prospero V. Tablizo were absolved from administrative liability, the complaint against them being found without merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charges against respondent Deputy Sheriff Felinor R. Trampe: The Court found the charges meritorious, holding that Trampe was remiss in his duties. Despite two attempts to enforce the writ, it was returned unsatisfied due to the defendants' defiant attitude. Trampe's excuse of avoiding untoward incidents by meekly leaving the premises was deemed unacceptable, especially since this was not the first instance of such defiance. The Court emphasized that sheriffs must exert necessary or reasonable force to repel defiance and violence, as authorized by the court and the writ. Trampe's "lackadaisical attitude" gave credence to the complainant's claim of partiality and contributed to the delay in justice, thereby diminishing public faith in the judiciary. The Court reiterated that execution is the "fruit and end of the suit" and the "life of the law," and sheriffs must consider it their bounden duty to ensure its execution promptly and efficiently. The Court cited Rafael Lacuata vs. Sheriff Antonio J.M. Bautista and Moya vs. Bassig to underscore the importance of dispatch in executing judgments. On the charges against respondents Deputy Sheriff Carlos M. Ubalde and Ex-Oficio Provincial Sheriff Prospero V. Tablizo: The Court ruled that Ubalde's refusal to proceed with the execution on November 3, 1993, was justified because he was following the instruction of his superior, Tablizo, to defer the execution pending consultation with the Presiding Judge regarding a pending motion to quash a previous writ. Ubalde was merely obeying an order and could have been charged with insubordination had he insisted on enforcement. Similarly, Tablizo acted in good faith by instructing Ubalde to hold the execution in abeyance. Tablizo became aware of an unresolved pending incident, specifically the defendants' motion to quash the writ, even if filed to delay execution. He could not pre-empt the court's ruling on this motion. The Court noted that the court subsequently reconsidered its order and held the issuance of the alias writ in abeyance pending resolution of the motion to quash, validating Tablizo's cautious approach. The Court cited Young vs. Momblar for the principle that sheriffs must proceed with reasonable celerity in the absence of instructions, but here, instructions were given based on a pending judicial matter.
Main Doctrine
Sheriffs have a ministerial duty to implement writs of execution with reasonable celerity and promptness. Failure to do so, especially when merely avoiding untoward incidents or acting on vague instructions without proper court consultation, constitutes dereliction of duty and undermines public faith in the judiciary. However, obedience to a superior's lawful instruction to defer execution pending resolution of a motion to quash, when such deferral is based on a pending court matter, may justify a sheriff's actions.