Title
Bunagan vs. Ferraren
Case
A.M. No. P-06-2173
Decision Date
Jan 28, 2008
Sheriff delayed writ execution, solicited funds without receipts, and violated court procedures, leading to suspension for dereliction of duty and misconduct.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-06-2173)

Facts:

Background of the Case

  • Complainant Sally Bunagan was the prevailing party in Civil Case No. 04-547, where the defendant was ordered to vacate the subject property. A writ of execution was issued on April 20, 2005, but it was only implemented on September 26, 2005.

Complainant's Allegations

  • Complainant alleged that respondent Sheriff Joel Ferraren delayed the implementation of the writ, citing reasons such as rainy weather and the filing of motions by the occupants.
  • Respondent allegedly asked for P10,000.00 for implementation expenses, which was later reduced to P8,000.00. Complainant gave P4,000.00 but was not issued a receipt.
  • Complainant also claimed that respondent discussed the case with the occupants' counsel, raising suspicions of collusion.

Respondent's Defense

  • Respondent argued that he advised complainant to prepare for incidental expenses, such as food and gasoline for the police. He received P4,000.00 as partial payment for the approved incidental expenses of P9,600.00.
  • He claimed that the delay in implementation was due to humanitarian reasons (heavy rains) and the unavailability of policemen.
  • Respondent denied any wrongdoing and stated that he acted in good faith.

Procedural History

  • The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that respondent be held liable for neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming an officer of the court, with a suspension of three months without pay.
  • The case was referred to the Executive Judge of the MeTC, Makati City, for investigation. Complainant failed to appear in subsequent hearings, and the case was submitted for resolution based on the evidence on record.

Issue:

  1. Whether respondent Sheriff Joel Ferraren is guilty of dereliction of duty for the delayed implementation of the writ of execution.
  2. Whether respondent violated Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court by directly receiving money from complainant without following proper procedures.
  3. Whether respondent's actions constitute serious misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

  • The Court emphasized that sheriffs, as officers of the court, must uphold the integrity of the judiciary by performing their duties with diligence and in accordance with the law. Any deviation from these standards warrants administrative sanctions to maintain public confidence in the justice system.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.