A.M. No. P-01-1483 - Aquino vs. Lavadia

This is an administrative complaint filed by EDNA FE F. AQUINO against Isabelo Lavadia, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabagan, Isabela.

The complaint charges respondent with inefficiency and gross neglect of duty for failing to execute writs of execution arising from specified civil cases (Nos. 20-576, 20-613, 20-627, and 19-411).

The complainant alleged that several writs of execution—some dating as far back as 1995—were endorsed to Sheriff Lavadia and yet remained unexecuted.

Through her letter-complaint, the complainant emphasized that despite repeated written and verbal requests for updates and progress reports (as mandated by the Rules of Court), the respondent failed to take any action.

It was stressed that the prevailing party in a case is entitled to enjoy the fruits of victory, and the delay in executing the writs prevented justice from being fully served.

Respondent admitted the non-execution of the writs but attributed the delay not to a refusal or obstinacy but to an overly heavy workload.

He explained that, as the only sheriff in Cabagan, Isabela, and with responsibilities extending to handling writs from both the RTC and various Municipal Trial and Circuit Courts, his workload was significantly voluminous.

The respondent maintained that he has always believed in his bounden duty to enforce every writ; however, inadvertence due to the volume of pending work culminated in the delay.

The OCA’s investigation affirmed that the non-execution of the writs was undisputed.

The OCA ruled that respondent’s reason of “heavy workload” is unacceptable under the rules governing sheriffs’ duties, specifically citing Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

It emphasized that a sheriff’s function is ministerial—obligated to implement judicial orders promptly—and recommended administrative sanctions, specifically a suspension of one (1) month without pay.

Whether the failure of the respondent to execute the writs of execution constitutes inefficiency and gross neglect of duty.
Whether the respondent’s explanation of being overburdened by a heavy workload constitutes a valid or acceptable justification for failing to perform his ministerial duty.
Whether administrative sanctions, either in the form of suspension or an alternative penalty, are appropriate to impose on the respondent to ensure compliance with judicial duties in the future.