Sheriff's Duty of Diligence Over Personal Property During Demolition

A court-ordered demolition does not give sheriffs license to treat a person's belongings as trash. In Chupungco v. Cabusao, Jr. (A.M. No. P-03-1758, December 10, 2003), the Supreme Court held a deputy sheriff administratively liable for failing to exercise reasonable diligence over personal properties taken into his custody during the implementation of a writ of demolition.

The case is a reminder that even when a demolition is lawful, the officer tasked to carry it out remains accountable for how he handles what he removes from the premises.

The facts

Josefa Chupungco was one of the defendants in an unlawful detainer case before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 68. The MeTC ordered her and her co-defendant to vacate a parcel of land in Buting, Pasig. After the decision became final, the court issued a writ of execution, and later an alias writ. When the occupants still failed to comply, the MeTC issued a writ of demolition in April 2002.

On July 16, 2002, respondent Benjamin L. Cabusao, Jr., Deputy Sheriff III, implemented the writ. Chupungco was not present; she was then filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Neighbors, including her sister, witnessed the demolition.

Chupungco later filed an administrative complaint for oppression and grave abuse of authority. She alleged that the demolition team destroyed her home in a violent manner, ransacked valuables worth P300,000, took P50,000 in cash, dumped some belongings in a nearby river, and sold the materials of her house to a buyer in Mandaluyong City. She valued her house at P900,000.

The respondent denied the charges. He noted that Chupungco had also filed a motion to cite him for indirect contempt before the RTC of Pasig, which was denied for lack of merit.

What the investigation found

The Court referred the complaint to Executive Judge Jose R. Hernandez of the RTC of Pasig for investigation. In his report, Judge Hernandez found no substantive evidence to support the accusations of oppression and grave abuse of authority. The respondent had sought the assistance of police and barangay officials, and the plaintiffs had hired a "lipat-bahay" crew. A certification from a barangay official and photographs taken before and after the demolition supported the finding that there were no belongings of value in the house. The complainant also failed to substantiate her claimed valuations.

But the investigating judge flagged one matter: the respondent never explained what happened to the belongings and house materials that were hauled onto the truck. He described the respondent's lack of vigilance as inexcusable and recommended a strong reprimand, without prejudice to any civil action Chupungco might file.

The ruling

The Supreme Court agreed that the respondent was administratively liable, but it rejected the recommended penalty as too light.

The Court stressed that sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are ranking officers of the court and agents of the law. They must discharge their duties with great care and diligence, and they cannot afford to err without affecting the proper dispensation of justice. Good faith, or the lack of it, was immaterial: the respondent was chargeable with knowledge of his mandate, and his conduct had to be characterized by rectitude and forthrightness.

By failing to exercise vigilance over the personal properties placed in his custody upon implementation of the writ of demolition, the respondent fell short of the exacting standards required of an officer of the court. The Court found him liable for failure to exercise reasonable diligence in the performance of his duties and imposed a fine of P5,000, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. A copy of the decision was ordered entered in his personal record.

Notably, the Court cited its earlier rulings in Loyao, Jr. v. Armecin (337 SCRA 47, 2000), Magat v. Pimentel, Jr. (346 SCRA 153, 2000), and Villaluz Vda. de Enriquez v. Bautista (331 SCRA 521, 2000), among others, to underscore the high standards expected of court personnel.

Why this matters

The decision draws a clear line between the legality of a demolition and the manner of its execution. A valid writ protects the sheriff from charges of oppression where the evidence does not support them. It does not, however, excuse carelessness once personal property passes into the officer's hands.

Sheriffs implementing demolition orders effectively take custody of movable property found on the premises. That custody carries a duty: to account for what was taken, to keep it safe, and to be ready to explain its disposition. Silence on the whereabouts of hauled items can itself be the basis for administrative liability.

Practical takeaways

• A lawful writ of demolition does not immunize a sheriff from liability for negligence in handling the occupant's personal property.
• Officers tasked with demolition must exercise reasonable diligence over belongings taken into their custody and must be able to account for their disposition.
• Good faith is not a defense where the officer is chargeable with knowledge of the exacting standards of the office.
• Failure to exercise reasonable diligence may result in a fine, a stern warning, and an entry in the officer's personal record.
• An administrative finding does not bar the affected party from filing a separate civil action to recover the property or its value.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.