Sheriffs' Duty of Diligence: Liability for Erroneous Demolition

The Supreme Court has long held that sheriffs, as officers of the court, must exercise utmost diligence in implementing writs. When a sheriff demolishes a structure not covered by the writ, the Court will not hesitate to impose administrative sanctions. In Tomboc v. Velasco (A.M. No. P-07-2322, April 23, 2010), the Court clarified the standard of care expected of sheriffs and the consequences of failing to meet it.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Dalmacio Tomboc owned a house, piggery, and poultry business in Barangay Silano, Piñan, Zamboanga del Norte. In 2003, Sheriff Liborio Velasco Jr. served a writ of demolition covering Lot Nos. 80-A and 81-A. Tomboc immediately informed the sheriff that his house stood on Lot No. 81-B, which he had acquired through a pacto de retro sale. Velasco assured him that a surveyor would be present during the demolition.

On 10 July 2003, the sheriff demolished a house belonging to Leonardo Naranjo. The next day, despite Tomboc's protests, the sheriff demolished Tomboc's house as well. The writ, however, did not cover Lot No. 81-B where Tomboc's house was built.

The Issue

The central question was whether Sheriff Velasco should be held administratively liable for demolishing a house not covered by the writ of demolition.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found Sheriff Velasco guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. The Court suspended him for six months and one day without pay, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

The Court emphasized that the writ covered only Lot Nos. 80-A and 81-A. Velasco had been informed beforehand that Tomboc's house was on Lot No. 81-B. Instead of verifying this claim through a relocation survey, he relied on the plaintiff's representative who said the house should be included in the demolition.

The Standard of Diligence for Sheriffs

The Court reiterated that sheriffs are repositories of public trust. They are bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in performing official duties, particularly where individual rights might be jeopardized by neglect. When a party raises a claim that a property is not covered by a writ, the sheriff must act with caution and verify the boundaries before proceeding.

The investigating judge noted that Velasco should have required the prevailing parties to conduct a relocation survey when Tomboc asserted his house was on a different lot. His failure to do so resulted in damage to the complainant.

Liability of Co-Sheriffs

The complaint against the other two sheriffs, Medar T. Padao and Stephen R. Bengua, was dismissed. Velasco himself testified that while they were present during the demolition, they did not participate because the writ was assigned to him alone. This shows that liability attaches to the sheriff who actually implements the writ, not to those merely present.

Practical Takeaways

• Verify before demolishing. When a property owner claims that a structure is not covered by a writ, the sheriff must conduct a relocation survey or otherwise verify the boundaries before proceeding.
• Do not rely on interested parties. A sheriff should not rely solely on the prevailing party's representative to determine which structures fall within the writ's coverage.
• Individual liability. Only the sheriff assigned to implement the writ is liable for errors in its execution; co-sheriffs who merely witness the demolition are not automatically liable.
• Administrative consequences. Erroneous demolition can result in suspension from service without pay, in addition to potential civil liability for damages.
• Damages are separate. The administrative case addresses the sheriff's misconduct; the aggrieved party may still pursue a separate civil action for the damages suffered.

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