Sheriffs Must Follow Procedure in Writ Execution or Face Administrative Liability

The Supreme Court has long held that a sheriff's duty in executing a writ is ministerial—meaning the sheriff must carry out the court's order without discretion. But this does not give sheriffs a license to act arbitrarily. In Balmaceda-Tugano v. Marcelino (A.M. No. P-14-3233, October 14, 2019), the Court reminded sheriffs that procedural rules on execution must be followed strictly, and any deviation constitutes misconduct.

The Case: A Hastily Enforced Eviction

The case arose from an unlawful detainer case where complainant Lydia Balmaceda-Tugano was ordered to vacate a property. After the decision became final, the trial court issued a Writ of Execution on November 3, 2011.

Sheriff Jerry R. Marcelino posted a Notice to Vacate on the front door of the complainant's house on November 7, 2011—the same day he enforced the writ. He forcibly opened the locked door and removed the complainant's belongings, all in the presence of barangay officials. The complainant was not home at the time, as she was looking for a new place to move into.

The complainant argued that she was never personally notified of the writ and was not given sufficient time to vacate. She also claimed she was prevented from removing her house and materials, which she had built using her own resources.

The Issue: Did the Sheriff Violate Procedure?

The central question was whether Sheriff Marcelino committed grave abuse of authority when he enforced the writ without proper notice and with undue haste.

The Ruling: Strict Compliance Is Required

The Supreme Court found Sheriff Marcelino guilty of grave abuse of authority. The Court emphasized that while sheriffs must execute writs with reasonable celerity, immediacy of execution does not mean instant execution.

The Court cited Rule 39, Section 10(c) of the Rules of Court, which requires the sheriff to demand that the person against whom the judgment is rendered peaceably vacate the property within three (3) working days. Only after this period may the sheriff oust the occupants.

The Court also pointed to Section 10(d), which states that improvements constructed by the judgment obligor shall not be destroyed, demolished, or removed except upon special order of the court.

Key Principles Established

The three-day notice cannot be dispensed with. Even in cases where decisions are immediately executory—such as unlawful detainer cases—the required three-day notice period must be observed. A sheriff who enforces a writ without the required notice or before the expiry of the three-day period violates the Rules.

Posting is not enough when personal service is possible. The sheriff in this case merely posted the notice on the door because the complainant was not around. The Court noted that he made no effort to ascertain her whereabouts or ensure she received the notice personally.

The requirement of notice is based on justice and fair play. The Court stressed that the notice requirement "frowns upon arbitrariness and oppressive conduct in the execution of an otherwise legitimate act." It amplifies the principle that every person must act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Penalty Imposed

Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, grave abuse of authority is punishable by suspension for six months and one day to one year. However, because Sheriff Marcelino had already been dismissed from service in a prior case (Litonjua v. Marcelino, A.M. No. P-18-3865, October 9, 2018), the Court instead imposed a fine of P10,000.00, to be deducted from his accrued leave credits.

Practical Takeaways

• Sheriffs must strictly follow Rule 39, Section 10(c) of the Rules of Court when executing writs involving real property. The three-working-day notice period is mandatory and cannot be waived, even in immediately executory cases.
• Personal service of the notice should be attempted first. Posting the notice is not a substitute for personal service when the sheriff can reasonably locate the party.
• Sheriffs cannot act with undue haste. While execution should be prompt, it must not be done in a manner that deprives the judgment obligor of the opportunity to vacate peacefully.
• Improvements on the property are protected. Under Rule 39, Section 10(d), sheriffs cannot remove or demolish improvements without a special court order.
• Violations carry serious consequences. Administrative liability for grave abuse of authority can result in suspension or dismissal, and a prior dismissal does not prevent additional penalties.

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