Facts:

This case, A.M. No. P-04-1782, arose from a complaint filed on December 17, 2001, by Serafin A. Aaonuevo, who is the Chairman of the Legazpi Tricycle Transport Service Cooperative, Inc. (LETTRASCO), against Judge Jose Noel R. Rubio of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Legazpi City and Sheriff III Danilo C. Adille, both respondents in this administrative case. The complaint was predicated on allegations of rendering an unjust judgment in Civil Cases Nos. 4448 and 4449 and inefficiency and/or dereliction of duty concerning the implementation of the writs of execution issued in these cases. In 1997, LETTRASCO initiated two civil cases against defendants Florentino Revoltar and Alexander Daet to recover a sum of P 5,000.00 each, a loan amount that was not paid back. The trial court, on February 29, 2000, rendered a decision favorable to LETTRASCO but prescribed a 12% annual interest rate instead of the claimed 5% monthly interest. Writs of execution were issued on August

...

Facts:

Background of the Complaint

• On December 17, 2001, Serafin A. AAonuevo, Chairman of Legazpi Tricycle Transport Service Cooperative, Inc. (LETTRASCO), filed a letter-complaint.
• The complaint charged Judge Noel R. Rubio with rendering an unjust judgment in Civil Cases Nos. 4448 and 4449, and Sheriff Danilo C. Adille with inefficiency and/or dereliction of duty during the execution of writs issued in those cases.

The Underlying Civil Cases

• LETTRASCO filed two separate collection cases in 1997 against Florentino Revoltar and Alexander Daet for loans of P5,000.00 each.
• The cooperative claimed that the defendants had borrowed money in 1995 but failed to pay back as agreed.
• The cases were docketed as Civil Cases Nos. 4448 and 4449 before the MTCC-Legazpi City, Branch 3.

The Judgment and Interest Controversy

• On February 29, 2000, Judge Rubio rendered decisions in favor of LETTRASCO in both cases.
• Instead of imposing the stipulated five percent (5%) monthly interest per the original statements of account, the judge ordered interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of judicial demand.
• The complainant alleged that the irregular computation of interest, and the judge’s reasoning based on a dubious "Statement of Account" with blank sections filled in disparate handwritings, constituted an unjust judgment.

Execution of the Judgments

• Writs of execution were issued on August 4, 2000.
• The respondent Sheriff delayed serving the writs until December 2000, only acting after repeated prodding by LETTRASCO and its chairman.
• Partial payments were received:
• Defendant Revoltar paid P3,500.00 and later an additional P2,000.00 (totaling P5,500.00).
• Defendant Daet paid only P2,000.00 with the balance still outstanding.
• The delay in executing the writs and the failure to report on the status as required sparked the administrative complaint against the sheriff.

Respondents’ Positions and Explanations

• Respondent Judge Rubio denied the charge of rendering an unjust judgment, stating that his decision was based solely on the evidence on record.
• He argued that the Statement of Account used by LETTRASCO was dubious due to inconsistencies such as blank portions filled later in different handwritings.
• He emphasized that if his decision were erroneous, the proper remedy would be through appeal, not administrative complaint.
• The complaint against him was ultimately dismissed due to lack of merit.
• Respondent Sheriff Adille defended his actions by claiming that he had duly served the writs and that partial payments from the defendants proved his compliance.
• He noted that Defendant Daet, described as a boundary tricycle driver residing in a dilapidated rented house, had promised to pay the balance by a specified date.
• He pleaded for compassion and understanding, pointing to external circumstances affecting the collection of the full judgment amount.

Administrative Proceedings and Prior Cases

• The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended dismissing the complaint against Judge Rubio while recommending sanction against the sheriff for neglect of duty.
• The decision referenced similar disciplinary actions in previous cases:
• Morta v. BagagAan – penalizing a sheriff for a significant delay in implementing a writ of execution.
• Paner v. Torres – finding a sheriff guilty of dereliction of duty over delayed execution actions.
• Fajardo v. Quitalig – fining a sheriff for not executing the writ promptly and for neglecting periodic reporting as mandated by the Rules of Court.

Issue:

On the Charge Against the Judge

• Whether Judge Rubio rendered an unjust judgment by failing to apply the stipulated interest rate and instead imposing a lower, non-stipulated rate.
• Whether his decision based on the allegedly dubious Statement of Account justified his ruling, given that the appropriate remedy was through appeal rather than an administrative proceeding.

On the Charge Against the Sheriff

• Whether Sheriff Adille committed simple neglect of duty by delaying the implementation of the writs of execution.
• Whether his failure to comply with Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court—which mandates immediate reporting and periodic updates on the execution of judgments—constitutes inefficiency and/or dereliction of duty.
• Whether the partial collection of the judgment obligation excuses the delay in reporting and full execution of the writs.

On the Appropriate Administrative Sanction

• Whether the imposition of a suspension, considering the delay and the procedural lapses, is just and proportionate as a penalty for his administrative offense.
• Whether similar administrative cases and precedents support the court’s decision to sanction the sheriff under the given circumstances.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)