A.M. No. P-08-2571 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2651-P] - SIMEON GUARIÑO, RESTITUTO GUARIÑO, ARNOLD CARAGUIAN, LIZARDO SARMIENTO, AND PRESING SARMIENTO, VS. CESAR F. RAGSAC, SHERIFF IV, AND TEOTIMO D. CRUZ, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, BOTH OF RTC, BR. 75, SAN MATEO, RIZAL. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-L

Ruling

accordingly recommended that respondent Sheriff be found guilty of grave abuse of authority and fined P5,000, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. [3] With respect to the complaint against respondent Branch Clerk of Court, the Court of Administrator recommended its dismissal for lack of merit. [4] This Court finds well-taken the evaluation by the Court Administrator. Respondent Sheriff's explanation that he merely implemented the Writ of Execution fails. For the Writ, after incorporating the dispositive portion of the decision in the ejectment case reading: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff ANITA T. DIAZ, and against defendants Simeon Guarino, Resty Guarino, Felizardo Sarmiento and Arnold Caraguian ordering: The defendants or any other persons acting in their behalf, to vacate the premises in question identified as Lot 3054-A now covered by TCT No. 129103 registered in the name of the herein plaintiff; The defendants to surrender its possession to plaintiff; Defendants to pay the sum of P200.00 per month as reasonable compensation for the use of property respectively occupied by them, commencing from the year of 1993 until they finally vacate the same; Defendants to pay P50,000 as attorney's fees; Defendants to pay the cost, [5] merely commanded him to execute the decision "pursuant to the [R]ules of Court and to likewise return th[e] Writ . . . as provided under Rule 39, Sec. 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure." The above-quoted dispositive portion of the decision is self-explanatory, and since there is no order in the Writ for the demolition of the improvements on the land subject of the case, respondent Sheriff's failure to observe the procedure in Section 10 (d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which reads: SEC. 10. Execution of judgments for specific act. x x x x (d) Removal of improvements on property subject of execution . - When the property subject of the execution contains improvements constructed or planted by the judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove said improvements except upon special order of the court , issued upon motion of the judgment obligee after due hearing and after the former has failed to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court , (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) constitutes grave abuse of authority. [6] It appearing that this is respondent Sheriff's first offense of grave abuse of authority (oppression), it is, under Rule IV, Section 52 (A) (14) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, punishable by suspension for six months and one day to one year. [7] Respecting the complaint against respondent Branch Clerk of Court, the Court finds the recommendation for its dismissal well-taken. WHEREFORE , respondent Sheriff Cesar F. Ragsac is found GUILTY of grave abuse of authority (oppression) and is SUSPENDED for six months