Court Employee Disciplined for Interfering with Execution of Judgment

---

A court employee who left her post to help a friend stop the implementation of a valid sheriff's sale has been found guilty of violating the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. The Supreme Court's ruling in Lim v. Aromin (A.M. No. P-09-2677, March 9, 2011) serves as a clear reminder that those who work in the judiciary must uphold professionalism and integrity—not only during office hours but in all their dealings.

The case arose from a labor dispute where complainants Angelina Lim and Vivian Gaduang obtained a favorable decision from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). After securing an Alias Writ of Execution and a Certificate of Sheriff's Sale, they proceeded to a warehouse in Meycauayan, Bulacan to take possession of the properties awarded to them.

While loading the items, Maribeth Aromin, a Records Officer I at the Municipal Trial Court, arrived and ordered them to stop. She claimed someone would bring a court order halting the implementation of the certificate of sale. When no order came after an hour, the complainants resumed loading—prompting Aromin to allegedly shout invectives at them, calling them thieves and using profane language.

Aromin denied the accusations. She explained that Billy Lim, the warehouse owner and her close friend, had asked her to seek police assistance and to tell the complainants to wait for him. She claimed she was merely helping a friend and had nothing to do with the underlying controversy.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated and found Aromin liable. The Supreme Court adopted the OCA's findings, ruling that Aromin violated Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which requires court personnel to commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.

The Court noted that November 8, 2006 was a regular working day, yet Aromin was at the warehouse instead of her station. No leave of absence was presented to justify her absence. The transaction she participated in was clearly not part of her duties as a court employee.

More disturbing, the Court said, was that Aromin interfered with the execution of a valid certificate of sheriff's sale on behalf of a friend, without regard to the impropriety of her actions. Her conduct led the complainants to believe she was using her position to advance Billy Lim's interests despite the existence of NLRC decisions and orders in their favor.

The Court emphasized that court personnel must devote every moment of official time to public service. Their conduct and behavior mirror the image of the court, and they must strictly observe official time to inspire public respect for the justice system.

Aromin was fined P5,000 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would warrant a more severe penalty.

Practical takeaways:

• Court employees must not use their positions to intervene in cases, even for friends or relatives. Doing so erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
• Official time is for official duties. Leaving one's post during working hours to attend to personal matters, without proper leave, is a violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
• Even private actions can result in administrative liability. Court personnel are expected to be living examples of uprightness in their personal and private dealings, not just in their official functions.
• Interfering with the execution of a court judgment is especially serious. A valid court order must be respected and implemented, and no court employee should obstruct it.
• The penalty for such misconduct can include fines and more severe sanctions for repeat offenses.

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