Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty in the Judiciary: When a Sheriff Alters a Writ

The Supreme Court has long held that those who work in the judiciary must be models of propriety and integrity. When a court officer betrays that trust, the entire justice system suffers. In Sismaet v. Sabas (A.M. No. P-03-1680, May 27, 2004), the Court dealt with a sheriff who not only failed to execute a final judgment but also altered a court-issued writ to favor the losing party. The case serves as a stern reminder that the duty of a sheriff is ministerial—not discretionary.

The Facts of the Case

The dispute arose from a barangay-level agreement (Kasunduan) between complainant Judy Sismaet and her husband, on one hand, and Spouses Anatolio and Marilyn Baylon, on the other. The Baylons had used the Sismaets' property as collateral for a loan. When the Baylons failed to pay, the Sismaets advanced the amount and secured a Kasunduan requiring the Baylons to return the property title by May 30, 1995, or execute a Deed of Transfer in favor of the Sismaets.

When the Baylons failed to comply, the Sismaets filed a case for specific performance. The MTCC of Puerto Princesa City ruled in their favor and issued a writ of execution on December 6, 1996, directing then ex-officio sheriff Eriberto Sabas to enforce the Kasunduan by requiring the Baylons to execute a Deed of Transfer of their properties.

The execution was deferred due to an appeal, which the RTC later denied. An alias writ was issued on September 22, 1997, but was never served. When the complainant sought an explanation, Sabas said the Baylons had asked for more time to pay.

The Altered Writ

On October 23, 1997, Sabas showed the complainant an alias writ dated October 16, 1997. Upon scrutiny, it differed substantially from the original writ. The new writ gave the sheriff the option to collect P303,020.00 in cash from the judgment debtors instead of enforcing the Kasunduan. When confronted, Sabas shrugged: "Eh kasi mali ang ginawa ni Judge Gomez" (Because what Judge Gomez did was wrong).

The complainant filed a motion for clarification. Judge Jocelyn Sundiang-Dilig, upon learning of the discrepancy, quashed the October 16, 1997 alias writ and issued a new one conforming to the original order. The Court noted that the September 22, 1997 order merely directed the issuance of an alias writ to enforce the December 6, 1996 order—nothing in it gave the defendants the option to pay cash.

Sabas also submitted a maliciously erroneous sheriff's return, making it appear that a third party had moved into the subject premises on November 6, 1998, when barangay records showed the actual date was November 19, 1998.

The Issue

The central issue was whether Sabas was guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty for altering the writ of execution and submitting a false return.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Sabas guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty. The Court emphasized that a sheriff's duty to execute a valid writ is ministerial and not discretionary. A ministerial act is one performed in a prescribed manner without regard to the officer's own judgment on the propriety of the act.

The Court quoted the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court: sheriffs are "agents of the law and not agents of the parties." They cannot make compromises in execution sales, and they must execute orders "strictly to the letter."

Being a lawyer with over 11 years in service, Sabas should have known he could neither add to nor subtract from the contents of the court's order. By drafting an alias writ substantially different from the original and causing it to be signed, he degraded the judicial system. His maliciously erroneous return further delayed and rendered nugatory the final order of the court.

The Court noted this was not Sabas's first administrative offense—he had previously been reprimanded for dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a public officer.

The Penalty

Because Sabas had compulsorily retired on September 16, 2001, the Court could not impose dismissal. Instead, it ordered the forfeiture of his retirement benefits equivalent to six months' salary, to be deducted from the benefits earlier withheld pending resolution of the case. The complaint against Sheriff Ernesto Simpliciano was dismissed due to his death and lack of evidence of connivance.

Practical Takeaways

• Sheriffs have a ministerial duty. They must execute writs strictly according to the court's order. They cannot alter, add, or subtract from its contents, nor can they make compromises on their own initiative.
• Court officers are held to a high standard. From judges to clerks to sheriffs, everyone connected with the dispensation of justice must behave with propriety and decorum at all times.
• Falsifying official returns is serious misconduct. Submitting a sheriff's return with false dates or facts to delay execution constitutes dishonesty and grave misconduct.
• Prior administrative offenses matter. A history of administrative liability can aggravate the penalty for subsequent offenses.
• Retirement does not mean escape. Compulsory retirement does not shield a court employee from administrative liability; retirement benefits may be forfeited.

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