Facts:

This case involves an administrative complaint filed by Astorga and Repol Law Offices, represented by Atty. Arnold B. Lugares, against Leodel N. Roxas, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, Makati City. The complaint arose from the execution of a judgment in Civil Case No. 01-1002, where FGU Insurance Corporation (FGU) was awarded damages against NEC Cargo Services, Inc. (NEC) and ordered to pay a total of P1,942,285.91, along with attorney's fees and costs. The decision became final and executory on September 24, 2004. FGU filed a Motion for Execution, which was granted, and a Writ of Execution was issued on July 10, 2006.

On July 11, 2006, Sheriff Roxas served the Writ of Execution to NEC and levied personal properties found in the NEC office. An auction sale was scheduled for July 19, 2006. However, on July 17, 2006, Mr. Narciso E. Catalon filed an Affidavit of Third Party Claim asserting ownership over the levied properties. Sheriff Roxas provide...

Facts:

Background of the Civil Case and Judgment

• FGU Insurance Corporation (FGU) instituted Civil Case No. 01-1002 for damages against NEC Cargo Services, Inc. (NEC), with Albert T. Tamayo as third party defendant.
• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision in favor of FGU, ordering NEC to pay a specific amount, attorney’s fees, and costs, and also ordering third party defendant Alberto Tamayo (doing business as Patriot Cargo Movers) to reimburse amounts in certain circumstances.
• The decision became final and executory on September 24, 2004, leading FGU to file a Motion for Execution. The RTC granted the motion and issued the Writ of Execution on July 10, 2006.

Execution of the Judgment and Intervention of Third Parties

• On July 11, 2006, respondent, Leodel N. Roxas, Sheriff IV of RTC, Branch 66, Makati City, served the Writ of Execution on NEC at its office location in Muntinlupa City, where the personal properties (office equipment) were subsequently levied.
• A scheduled auction sale was set for July 19, 2006, with proper notice being sent and posted on relevant public bulletin boards.
• On July 17, 2006, Mr. Narciso E. Catalon filed an Affidavit of Third Party Claim asserting his ownership over the levied properties, prompting the respondent to issue a Notice of Third Party Claim on July 18, 2006.
• Due to FGU’s failure to post an indemnity bond in favor of Catalon, the respondent cancelled the scheduled auction sale, and the Sheriff’s Report dated August 7, 2006 declared the levy lifted and cancelled, with the properties released to Catalon.

Allegations of Willful Neglect by the Complainant

• In April 2008, Astorga and Repol Law Offices, represented by Atty. Arnold B. Lugares, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Leodel N. Roxas for alleged willful neglect of duty.
• The complaint detailed that, despite repeated follow-ups and submission of documents (such as the Articles of Incorporation of NEC) indicating potential leviable assets in the form of unpaid subscriptions, respondent refused to execute the decision properly by levying or garnishing such assets.
• The complainant asserted that the respondent’s inaction and failure to provide periodic reports undermined the effectivity of the RTC decision, effectively reducing FGU’s favorable judgment to a mere “paper victory.”

Respondent’s Counter and Defense

• Respondent denied the allegations, asserting that he had already executed the necessary steps by levying the NEC property on July 11, 2006, as per the Writ of Execution.
• He maintained that the cancellation of the auction sale was due solely to the filing of the third-party claim and the failure of FGU to post an indemnity bond.
• Respondent further contended that his submission of a Sheriff's Report on August 7, 2006, complied with the Rules of Court and that any suggestions for garnishment regarding unpaid subscriptions were beyond his official mandate since they were not explicitly mentioned in the judgment.
• He emphasized that he had even suggested that the matter be brought to the court’s attention for further clarification regarding the alleged leviable assets.

Findings and Administrative Recommendations

• The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its report dated November 9, 2011, recommended that the administrative complaint against Leodel N. Roxas be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter.
• The OCA found the respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty, recommending his suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, along with a stern warning, to deter future similar acts.
• The mandate of Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court was highlighted, which requires a sheriff to file a return of the writ of execution immediately after partial or full satisfaction of the judgment and periodic reports thereafter every 30 days.
• It was shown that for almost two years following the initial Sheriff's Report, respondent failed to file any further periodic reports concerning the execution of the judgment, leaving FGU unaware of any further actions to enforce the decision.

Court’s Final Determination

• The Court, acknowledging the OCA’s findings and recommendations, found respondent Leodel N. Roxas guilty of simple neglect of duty.
• Accordingly, respondent was suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day and was sternly warned that any repetition of similar neglect might incur more severe sanctions.
• The decision emphasizes that swift execution of judgments is paramount to uphold public confidence in the judicial process.

Issue:

Whether respondent Leodel N. Roxas, as Sheriff IV of RTC, Branch 66, committed willful neglect of duty by failing to file the mandated periodic reports on the Writ of Execution.

• The issue centers on the statutory requirement under Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court for filing returns and periodic reports on a writ of execution.
• The failure to submit such periodic reports left the prevailing party, FGU Insurance Corporation, uninformed about the efforts to execute the judgment.

Whether the obstacles allegedly cited by respondent, such as the unspecific nature of the judgment regarding the unpaid subscriptions and the third-party claim, justify his inaction in proceeding with further execution efforts.

• This issue examines whether respondent’s explanation for not proceeding with garnishment or levy on alleged assets stands as a valid legal excuse given his duty.
• It raises the broader question of whether difficulties in execution can absolve a sheriff from his responsibility to report any developments or problems to the court.

• Whether the negligent conduct alleged amounts to a "simple neglect of duty" sufficient to warrant administrative penalties, including suspension, as a measure to enforce accountability among court personnel.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)