Facts:

The case at hand involves an administrative complaint for grave misconduct filed by Ma. Lourdes V. Areola, acting as the attorney-in-fact of Praxedes Afficionado and others, against Oscar P. Patag, a sheriff from the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 67, Binangonan, Rizal. The complaint arose from the failure of Patag to properly execute a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 04-045, concerning an unlawful detainer case that was adjudicated in favor of Praxedes Afficionado and her co-plaintiff. On November 3, 2004, the Municipal Trial Court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them possession of the property in question. Following this, Areola filed a motion for execution on November 30, 2004, which the Court granted, leading to the issuance of a writ of execution on March 7, 2005. Patag received this writ on April 13, 2005, yet he allegedly delayed its execution and failed to submit a timely return. The execution was only reportedly completed on July 13, 200

...

Facts:

In this case, complainants Ma. Lourdes V. Areola—attorney-in-fact of Praxedes Afficionado and others—filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Oscar P. Patag of RTC, Binangonan, Rizal, alleging grave misconduct in the implementation of a writ of execution arising from Civil Case No. 04-045 for unlawful detainer. The complaint alleged that although the writ was issued on March 7, 2005, Sheriff Patag received it on April 13, 2005 and delayed its execution until July 13, 2005. Furthermore, it was charged that he failed to prepare and submit the necessary return of the writ and disobeyed court directives by allowing unrelated occupants (spouses Santiago and Frank Lagrameda) into the property, asserting that such property was not even encompassed by the writ.

Respondent, however, contended that the delay resulted from the complainant’s principals only paying the required fees on July 13, 2005. He maintained that upon fee payment he promptly executed the writ, delivered possession, and issued the appropriate documents on the same day. He further explained that the entry of the Lagrameda spouses was justified on the ground that the disputed property belonged to another civil case, which had been dismissed.

Subsequently, the matter was referred to the Executive Judge of RTC, Binangonan, Rizal, who, in his December 2006 Report, found the sheriff guilty of neglect for failing to advise on fee payment and for not preparing an approved estimate of expenses or making the mandatory return of the writ. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its March 2007 Memorandum, echoed this finding and recommended a P3,000.00 fine against the sheriff—not for grave misconduct but for neglect of duty. However, upon learning of Sheriff Patag’s death, and noting that similar cases involving deceased respondents had been dismissed in the interest of fairness and due process, complainant Areola herself filed an ex parte motion to dismiss the case.

Issue:

The central issues raised were:

1. Whether Sheriff Oscar P. Patag’s failure to execute the writ of execution promptly, to prepare an appropriate estimate of expenses, and to submit the mandatory return constituted grave misconduct or merely neglect of duty.
2. Whether the delay in execution could be excused on the basis of the principals’ late payment of fees.
3. The appropriateness of imposing administrative sanctions against a respondent who had already died, thereby precluding any opportunity for defense or further adjudication.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)