Chupungco v. Cabusao, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Josefa C. Chupungco filed an Affidavit-Complaint against respondent Benjamin L. Cabusao, Jr., Deputy Sheriff III of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig City, Branch 68, for oppression and grave abuse of authority. The complaint stemmed from the respondent's implementation of a writ of execution and subsequent writ of demolition in Civil Case No. 4199, an unlawful detainer case where Chupungco was a defendant. Procedural History: The MeTC issued a writ of execution on August 26, 1998, which was returned unsatisfied. An alias writ was granted, and subsequently, a writ of demolition was issued on April 9, 2002, for improvements erected on the subject lot. The notice of demolition was served on July 11, 2002. The complainant had filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals questioning an RTC decision dismissing her earlier petition. The respondent implemented the writ of demolition on July 16, 2002. The Petition: The complainant alleged that the respondent and his team violently demolished her home, ransacked it, stole valuables amounting to ₱300,000 and cash of ₱50,000, and sold the materials of the demolished house. She valued her house at ₱900,000. The respondent denied the charges, stating that a motion to cite him for indirect contempt for the same incident was denied by the RTC for lack of merit. The investigating judge found no substantive evidence for oppression and grave abuse of authority but noted the respondent's failure to explain the whereabouts of the complainant's belongings and house materials, recommending a reprimand for lack of vigilance.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff committed oppression and grave abuse of authority in implementing the writ of demolition. Whether the respondent sheriff was negligent in failing to exercise vigilance over the complainant's belongings and house materials.
Ruling
The Court found the respondent sheriff administratively liable for failing to exercise reasonable diligence and vigilance over the complainant's properties during the implementation of the writ of demolition. While the charges of oppression and grave abuse of authority were dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence, the respondent was fined ₱5,000 and sternly warned against future repetitions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of oppression and grave abuse of authority: The Court agreed with the investigating judge that there was no substantive evidence to support the complainant's accusations of oppression and grave abuse of authority. The respondent sheriff had sought assistance from police and barangay officials, and a lipat-bahay crew was hired by the plaintiffs to assist in the demolition. Furthermore, certifications and photographs supported the respondent's claim that there were no belongings of value in the complainant's house. The complainant also failed to substantiate her claims regarding the value of her house and personal properties. On the issue of negligence and lack of vigilance: The Court found the respondent sheriff administratively liable for his failure to exercise vigilance over the personal properties of the complainant that were placed in his custody during the implementation of the writ of demolition. As an officer of the court, sheriffs are expected to discharge their duties with great care and diligence. Their conduct must be characterized by rectitude and forthrightness. The respondent's lack of vigilance over the complainant's belongings and house materials was deemed inexcusable, as he failed to provide an explanation for their whereabouts. This failure to live up to the exacting standards required of an officer of the court led to the imposition of a fine.
Main Doctrine
A deputy sheriff, as an officer of the court, is expected to discharge duties with great care and diligence, and failure to exercise reasonable diligence in the performance of duties, particularly in safeguarding properties during the implementation of a writ of demolition, warrants disciplinary action.