A.M. No. P-92-695 - Florendo vs. Enrile

Cynthia A. Florendo, the complainant, filed a sworn letter-complaint on March 17, 1992, with the Office of the Court Administrator.
The complaint charged Exequier Enrile, the respondent and deputy sheriff of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) at Cabanatuan City, with failure to enforce a writ of demolition despite collecting a total of P5,200.00.
The underlying civil dispute involved several ejectment cases (Civil Cases Nos. 9241 to 9249) wherein the complainant was the plaintiff.
A joint decision rendered on June 22, 1987, by Branch 2 of the MTCC ordered the defendants to vacate the premises and surrender possession to the complainant.
The decision was affirmed by a joint decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on August 18, 1989.
A writ of execution was issued by the MTCC on January 19, 1990, and later, by its order on March 21, 1990, a writ of demolition was granted due to the defendants’ refusal to vacate.
The writ of demolition was denied an extension on June 27, 1990.

Respondent Enrile received a total of P5,200.00 from the complainant and her lawyer, purportedly as sheriff’s fees for the service and implementation of the writ.

Partial payment of P2,700.00 was acknowledged on the complainant’s lawyer’s stationery.
Another payment of P500.00 was likewise acknowledged on stationery of the Office of the City Legal Officer.
A check drawn by the complainant’s counsel accounted for P2,000.00.

No official receipt was issued by the respondent for the amount received.
The respondent failed to execute the writ of demolition despite the collection of fees.
On November 8, 1990, the complainant’s lawyer sent a letter demanding either enforcement of the writ or a refund of the P5,200.00 within ten days.

In his answer dated June 16, 1992, the respondent admitted to collecting the P5,200.00 but denied that he neglected to implement the writ.

He claimed repeated attempts to advise the defendants to vacate the premises.
He explained that on receiving the writ of demolition, he served it to the defendants on July 25, 1990, who then sought a 30-day extension.
A return of service was prepared on July 25, 1990.

After the expiration of the extension period, he again approached the defendants on September 4, 1990; however, he was threatened with death ("magkamatayan muna").
Returns of service prepared on July 25, 1990 and September 4, 1990 were only filed with the MTCC on May 29, 1991, and June 6, 1991, respectively.
A referral was made by Judge Romeo Mauricio of the MTCC to Mr. Arsenio S. Vicencio regarding the delayed return of service.
Mr. Vicencio confirmed the threat to the respondent’s life was genuine and requested the assignment of a new deputy sheriff.
The case was then investigated by the Executive Judge of the RTC in Cabanatuan City, Judge Johnson L. Ballutay, whose report and recommendation dated March 4, 1994, detailed numerous postponements and the respondent’s reluctance to secure counsel.

An exhaustive study revealed considerable neglect of duty on the part of the respondent.

He failed to coordinate with the complainant’s counsel and did not summon the defendants for contempt proceedings.
He neglected to request additional assistance (sheriff or police) to enforce the writ.

The Court cited the case of Active Wood Products, Inc. vs. IAC and reiterated that sheriffs must act without delay.
The respondent’s practice of collecting fees in installments and failing to issue an official receipt was deemed inconsistent with the judiciary’s code of ethics.
A recommendation was made by the Office of the Court Administrator for:

Imposing a fine equivalent to one month’s salary payable within ten days.
Ordering the return of the total amount (P5,200.00) to the complainant within twenty days, accompanied by a stern warning against repetition.

The respondent’s actions were eventually assessed as exhibiting grave misconduct, gross dishonesty, serious dereliction or neglect of duty, gross inefficiency, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The Court expressed disapproval of Judge Ballutay’s recommendation concerning the additional six-month suspension for the respondent’s refusal to secure counsel, noting that delays in hearings were also attributable to the judge’s accommodations.
Emphasis was placed on the duty of the sheriff as ministerial, mandating immediate and efficient execution of court writs, as stipulated in the Rules of Court and the Manual for Clerks of Court.

Whether the respondent’s collection of P5,200.00 as sheriff’s fee was in accordance with the lawful fees prescribed by the Rules of Court or represented an unlawful exaction.

Examination of the basis for the fees, including the discrepancy between the basic amount (initially P8.00, later increased to P100.00) and the amount collected.
Consideration of whether the installment collection method violated ethical standards.

Whether the respondent failed in his duty to expediently execute the writ of demolition.

Analysis of the delay in filing the returns of service and whether such delays were acceptable under the Rules of Court.
Evaluation of the respondent’s actions and whether he properly adhered to the mandate of executing the writ promptly.

Whether the respondent’s explanation of threats to his life justifies his failure to implement the writ.

Assessment of his failure to seek assistance from the MTCC or law enforcement authorities upon receiving credible threats.
Discussion on whether the threat excuse is sufficient to absolve him from the delays and subsequent administrative lapses.

The appropriate administrative sanction and disciplinary measure for the respondent.

Consideration of the recommended penalties by Judge Ballutay and the Office of the Court Administrator.
Determination of whether such mitigating circumstances as the complainant’s conformity to the dismissal should influence the severity of the penalty.