Facts:

The case involves Sally Bunagan (complainant) and Sheriff Joel Ferraren (respondent), who served as Sheriff III of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 67, Makati City. The events leading to the complaint began with a decision rendered on March 7, 2004, by the MeTC in Civil Case No. 04-547, where Bunagan was the prevailing party, and the defendant was ordered to vacate the subject property. A writ of execution was issued on April 20, 2005, but it was not implemented until September 26, 2005. The complainant alleged that the respondent delayed the execution of the writ, citing various reasons, including adverse weather conditions and his unavailability. Furthermore, Bunagan claimed that Ferraren requested her to prepare P10,000.00 for implementation expenses, which was later negotiated down to P8,000.00. She paid him P4,000.00 on August 1, 2005, but did not receive a receipt. The respondent, along with another sheriff, served the writ on the same day but later asked Bun...

Facts:

Overview of the Case

• Complainant Sally Bunagan, the prevailing party in a previous decision (Civil Case No. 04-547 dated March 7, 2004), charged Sheriff Joel Ferraren, Sheriff III of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 67, Makati City.
• The complaint accused the respondent of dereliction of duty, serious misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Timeline and Procedural Background

• A writ of execution was issued on April 20, 2005, ordering the relevant parties to vacate the subject property.
• Despite the writ being issued in April, its implementation was delayed until September 26, 2005, when the writ was finally executed.
• Respondent initially filed a return on August 15, 2005, which was significantly delayed considering the writ was issued almost four months earlier.
• Repeated delays were attributed to factors such as rainy weather, the unavailability or absence of the respondent, and objections raised by the property’s occupants, which led to multiple postponements.

Handling of Incidental Expenses

• Respondent initially asked for P10,000.00 for expenses related to the execution of the writ (covering items such as food and compensation for police officers).
• After bargaining, the amount was reduced to P8,000.00, yet complainant ended up providing only P4,000.00 in partial payment.
• When complainant requested a receipt for the amount given, the respondent stated that no receipts were issued for such purposes.
• The receipt of funds occurred prior to the court’s approval of the estimated expenses, as required by Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.

Execution Process and Subsequent Developments

• On August 1, 2005, respondent, along with another sheriff, Bayani Acle, served the writ to the occupants.
• Respondent attempted to negotiate with the occupants by asking complainant to vacate temporarily so that discussions could be held privately.
• Further delays and irregularities occurred:
• Instances when the respondent could not be located or was absent.
• Interference by motions or petitions filed by the occupants delayed the implementation of the writ.
• On several occasions, heavy rains and the unavailability of required police forces led to cancellation or postponement of further attempts, including on September 20, 2005.
• Ultimately, on September 26, 2005, after repeated delays and difficulties including encountering armed occupants, respondent forcibly opened the property and handed it over to complainant.

Pre-Hearing and Administrative Proceedings

• Complainant filed a Reply on December 20, 2005, upholding her allegations and refuting the respondent’s version of events.
• The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended administrative sanctions based on findings of neglect and misconduct, proposing a suspension of three months without pay and a stern warning.
• The case underwent several procedural developments:
• Resolutions in June 2006 and November 2006 moved the case between different judicial panels.
• Subsequent hearings scheduled in January and February 2007 were marked by the absence of complainant despite repeated attempts to secure her appearance.
• On March 20, 2007, the respondent moved to have the case deemed as submitted for resolution on the grounds of the complainant’s non-appearance, arguing that her failure prejudiced his right to confront her allegations.

Findings Relating to the Respondent’s Duties

• The respondent admitted receiving the money before any court-approved estimate was submitted and maintained it in trust without proper procedural deposit as required by law.
• He further failed to file a timely return or a complete liquidation report as mandated by Section 10, Rule 141.
• The multiple delays in executing the writ and in filing the required report highlight a disregard for the prompt administration of justice.

Issue:

Whether Sheriff Joel Ferraren committed administrative offenses by:

• Failing to execute the writ of execution with the necessary promptness.
• Deviating from the proper procedure in handling and receiving incidental expense funds from the complainant.
• Filing a delayed return, thereby neglecting his mandatory reporting and liquidation obligations under Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.

• Whether the failure of the complainant to appear in subsequent hearings can be used to excuse or mitigate the respondent’s alleged misconduct.

• How the respondent’s actions, including soliciting money unilaterally and mismanaging procedural duties, affect the integrity of the judicial process and the confidence of the public in the court’s administration.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)