In Tomboc v. Velasco, the Supreme Court addressed the extent of a sheriff’s liability when implementing a writ of demolition. The Court ruled that sheriffs must exercise due diligence in executing court orders and can be held liable for damages resulting from negligence or abuse of authority. This case clarifies the responsibilities of law enforcement officers in ensuring that their actions adhere strictly to the scope of judicial mandates, thereby safeguarding individuals from unwarranted property damage.

When a Writ Leads to Wrongful Wreckage: Can a Sheriff Be Held Responsible?

The case revolves around an administrative complaint filed by Dalmacio Z. Tomboc against Sheriffs Liborio M. Velasco, Jr., Medar T. Padao, and Stephen R. Bengua, all from the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City. Tomboc alleged abuse of authority after Velasco demolished his house, claiming it was wrongly included in a writ of demolition intended for properties on different lots. The central legal question is whether Velasco, as the implementing officer, acted with the necessary diligence to ensure the demolition only affected the properties specified in the court order. This incident highlights the critical balance between enforcing judicial decisions and protecting individual property rights.

The factual backdrop involves a writ of demolition issued in Spl. Civil Case No. 645, which pertained to Lot Nos. 80-A and 81-A in Barangay Silano, Piñan, Zamboanga del Norte. Tomboc informed Velasco that his house was located on Lot No. 81-B, acquired through a pacto de retro sale, and thus should not be subject to the demolition order. Despite this, Velasco proceeded with the demolition, leading to Tomboc’s complaint. The respondents argued that Lot No. 81-B fell within the larger land area registered under Rodolfo Galleposo, justifying the demolition. However, this contention was disputed by evidence presented during the investigation, particularly the testimony of Geodetic Engineer Willjado Jimeno, who confirmed that Tomboc’s house was indeed on Lot No. 81-B.

The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of sheriffs to act with reasonable skill and diligence in performing their official duties. Citing Bernabe v. Eguia, the Court reiterated that:

Sheriffs, as public officers, are repositories of public trust and are under obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully, and to the best of their abilities. Sheriffs are bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of their official duties, particularly where the rights of individuals might be jeopardized by their neglect.

Velasco’s failure to conduct a relocation survey or exercise greater caution when faced with Tomboc’s claim demonstrated a lack of diligence. The Court found that Velasco relied solely on the plaintiff’s representative in Spl. Civil Case No. 645, without independently verifying the property boundaries. This reliance, without further investigation, constituted negligence and a breach of his duty as a sheriff. It underscores the principle that public officers cannot blindly accept assertions without due verification, especially when property rights are at stake.

The Court referred to the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Resolution No. 991936, 31 August 1999, which prescribes penalties for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. The penalty for the first offense is suspension ranging from six months and one day to one year. Therefore, the Supreme Court modified the OCA’s recommendation of a six-month suspension, imposing a suspension of six months and one day without pay and other fringe benefits.

As for Padao and Bengua, the Court dismissed the complaint against them, as Velasco testified that they did not participate in the demolition of Tomboc’s house, the writ of demolition having been assigned solely to him. This illustrates that liability in such cases is generally confined to the officer directly responsible for the negligent act, unless there is evidence of conspiracy or direct involvement by other parties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Sheriff Velasco was liable for damages for demolishing Tomboc’s house, which was allegedly not covered by the writ of demolition. The court examined whether the sheriff exercised due diligence in implementing the court order.
On what basis did the Supreme Court find Sheriff Velasco liable?	The Supreme Court found Velasco liable because he failed to conduct a relocation survey or independently verify the property boundaries before demolishing Tomboc’s house. He relied solely on the plaintiff’s representative without further investigation.
What is the duty of a sheriff when implementing a writ of demolition?	A sheriff must exercise reasonable skill and diligence in performing their duties, especially when individual rights are at risk. This includes verifying property boundaries and ensuring the demolition is confined to the properties specified in the court order.
What penalty did the Supreme Court impose on Sheriff Velasco?	The Supreme Court suspended Velasco from service for six months and one day without pay and other fringe benefits. He also received a stern warning against repeating similar acts in the future.
Why were Sheriffs Padao and Bengua not held liable?	Padao and Bengua were not held liable because Sheriff Velasco testified that they did not participate in the demolition of Tomboc’s house. The writ of demolition was assigned solely to Velasco.
What does this case emphasize about public officers’ responsibilities?	This case emphasizes that public officers, like sheriffs, are repositories of public trust and must perform their duties honestly and faithfully. They must not blindly accept assertions without due verification, particularly when property rights are involved.
What legal principle does this case illustrate?	This case illustrates the legal principle that public officers can be held liable for damages resulting from negligence or abuse of authority in the performance of their duties. Due diligence is paramount in executing court orders.
What should a sheriff do when there is a dispute about property boundaries during a demolition?	A sheriff should conduct a relocation survey or require the prevailing parties to do so, to verify the property boundaries and ensure the demolition is confined to the properties specified in the court order.

Tomboc v. Velasco serves as a reminder of the critical importance of due diligence and careful execution in law enforcement. The ruling underscores that sheriffs and other public officers must act with caution and precision when implementing court orders, especially when those orders affect individual property rights. Failure to do so can result in significant legal consequences, including administrative penalties and liability for damages.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: DALMACIO Z. TOMBOC, COMPLAINANT, VS. SHERIFFS LIBORIO M. VELASCO, JR., MEDAR T. PADAO, AND STEPHEN R. BENGUA, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DIPOLOG CITY, RESPONDENTS., A.M. No. P-07-2322, April 23, 2010