Case Digest (A.M. No. P-06-2107)
Facts:
Cebu International Finance Corporation represented by its President Ruben D. Almendras v. Arthur R. Cabigon, A.M. No. P-06-2107 (formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2184-P), February 14, 2007, Supreme Court Third Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.The complainant, Cebu International Finance Corporation (through its president Ruben D. Almendras), filed an Affidavit Complaint dated April 7, 2005 charging Arthur R. Cabigon, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Cebu City (respondent), with non‑feasance and neglect of duty in connection with the implementation of a writ of possession issued in Civil Case No. CEB‑22725 (Cebu International Finance Corporation v. Spouses Luzviminda D. Tetales, et al.).
The writ of possession was issued on January 23, 2004 by Atty. Jeoffrey S. Joaquino, Clerk of Court and ex‑officio sheriff. In September 2004, respondent Cabigon was assigned to implement the writ after the regular sheriff of Branch 57 was disallowed. Complainant alleged respondent failed to fully execute the writ — he opened the gates but did not force entry into the house despite a court break‑open order; he allegedly ignored advice from Atty. Joaquino that execution could proceed even in the owners’ absence; he delayed action and, on occasion, allowed a defendant’s son to retrieve belongings.
Respondent filed a Comment and attached his Sheriff’s Report (dated June 6, 2005). He recounted attempts to serve a notice to vacate on September 14 and 20, 2004 (the latter refused signature by defendant), receipt of other court orders affecting his time, and that on January 19, 2005 he, with barangay officials, broke chains and padlocks of the gate and hut, posted security guards and allowed one temporary entry for humanitarian reasons. He claimed lack of logistical support and that plaintiff had not advanced the estimated expenses necessary for full execution.
Complainant’s Reply charged that respondent took almost nine months to report and that he violated Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court; complainant also denied respondent’s claim of lack of logistical support, asserting that respondent failed to submit an estimate for court approval.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the matter (Agenda Report, December 7, 2005), found respondent remiss for undue delay and failure to file timely reports (citing Administrative Circular No. 12, October 1, 1985; Section 4 and Section 14, Rule 39, Rules of Court), and recommended a fine of P5,000.00 with stern warning. The Court received respondent’s manifestation that he would submit the matter on the pleadings; the case was deemed subm...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Arthur R. Cabigon commit neglect of duty in the execution of the writ of possession and in the timely filing of reports required under the Rules of Court?
- Are respondent's explanations — particularly his claim of lack of logistical support and expense — a valid justification or mitigation for his failure to fully implement the writ, and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)