Dela Cruz v. Fajardo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants, employees of Viva Footwear Corporation (Viva), alleged that respondent Ma. Consuelo Joie A. Fajardo, Sheriff IV of RTC, Branch 93, San Pedro, Laguna, implemented a Writ of Possession issued in favor of Philippine National Bank (PNB) by forcefully evicting them after a three-day notice, levying on properties exempt from execution, and wrongfully applying the proceeds of the sale, thereby depriving complainants of their claims for unpaid wages and benefits from Viva. Procedural History: Complainants filed an Affidavit charging respondent with grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Respondent failed to file her comment despite two directives from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). After a show-cause order and a resolution from the Court's First Division, respondent finally submitted her comment, apologizing for the delay but praying for dismissal. The OCA evaluated the complaint and found no grave abuse of authority in the implementation of the writ, recognizing the ministerial nature of a sheriff's duty and that issues on preference of credits are judicial. However, the OCA found respondent guilty of gross insubordination for her non-compliance with the directives. The OCA recommended a fine of P10,000.00 and re-docketing of the case. The Court required the parties to manifest their willingness to submit the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings. Complainants manifested their willingness, but respondent failed to do so. The Court eventually dispensed with her manifestation and considered the case submitted for decision. The Petition: The administrative case stemmed from the alleged misconduct of Sheriff Fajardo in implementing a writ of possession, and her subsequent failure to comply with the directives of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to comment on the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Sheriff Fajardo committed grave abuse of authority in implementing the Writ of Possession. Whether respondent Sheriff Fajardo is guilty of gross insubordination for her failure to comply with the directives of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted the recommendations of the OCA, dismissing the administrative case against respondent Sheriff Fajardo for lack of merit but finding her guilty of gross insubordination. Respondent was fined P10,000.00, with a warning against repetition of the offense, and the case was to be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of authority: The Court affirmed the OCA's dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit, holding that the issues raised by the complainants regarding the correct application of proceeds from the auction sale involved matters of preference of credits under the Civil Code. These are judicial in nature and beyond the jurisdiction of a sheriff or the OCA to resolve. The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that a sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial, meaning they must execute the order of the court strictly as mandated, without exercising discretion. The sheriff is bound to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to implement the writ in accordance with its mandate to ensure execution without undue delay. Since no grave abuse of authority was found in the implementation of the Writ of Execution, the complaint on this ground was dismissed. On the issue of gross insubordination: The Court found respondent guilty of gross insubordination. It noted that respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for her prolonged and repeated refusal to comply with the Court's directives to submit her comment on the complaint, even after receiving multiple notices. Her apology for the delay was insufficient as it did not explain the reasons for the non-submission. The OCA deemed her noncompliance as gross insubordination because she only submitted her comment after a show-cause order was issued, nearly a year after the first directive. The Court held that such "prolonged and repeated refusal to comply" constituted willful disrespect of lawful orders from the Court and the OCA. The offense is punishable because judiciary employees are expected to exhibit utmost respect and obedience to superiors' orders and instructions, and indifference to administrative complaints and resolutions requiring comment is considered gross insubordination.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial, and issues concerning the preference of credits are judicial in nature and cannot be resolved by the sheriff. However, failure to comply with court directives to submit a comment on an administrative complaint constitutes gross insubordination.