Case Digest (A.M. No. P-01-1492)
Facts:
Renato Miguel D. Garcia v. Pershing T. Yared, Adm. Matter No. P-01-1492, March 20, 2003, Supreme Court Second Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Renato Miguel D. Garcia, President and Manager of the Rural Bank of Guihulngan (Negros Oriental), Inc., filed a letter‑complaint dated September 29, 1999 charging respondent Pershing T. Yared, Sheriff III of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Canlaon City, Negros Oriental, with neglect of duty and grave abuse of authority for alleged improper and inefficient execution of writs in four collection cases: Civil Cases Nos. 334, 328, 352 and 367 (all collection suits where the bank was the prevailing party).
The complaint detailed alleged lapses in each case: in Civil Case No. 334, a last return of service dated October 3, 1997 and purported failure to locate assets of MTC employees; in Civil Case No. 328, sale of an old karaoke for P1,000 and an unserved alias writ issued December 20, 1992; in Civil Case No. 352, delayed action and an estimate for travel to Cebu City while some local defendants remained unserved despite a July 21, 1999 court order to check local assessor records; and in Civil Case No. 367, returns dated August 2 and 31, 1999 and disputed ownership of a residence shown in complainant’s photographs.
Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo required respondent to comment (Oct. 27, 1999). In his November 19, 1999 Answer/Comment, respondent explained the factual and humanitarian bases for his actions: for Case No. 334 he claimed inability to locate attachable assets and reliance on partial payments; for Case No. 328 he admitted non‑service because the judgment debtors were reportedly destitute and some seized items were necessary for their livelihood; for Case No. 352 he contended that plaintiff failed to deposit the estimated expenses so he could not proceed to Cebu City and that he could not attach property of a non‑party (the co‑maker’s husband); and for Case No. 367 he maintained the house shown belonged to the debtor’s son, not the debtor.
Complainant replied (Aug. 28, 2000), challenging respondent’s humanitarian rationale and insisting the duty to serve writs is ministerial. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the matter (Report dated June 14, 2001) and recommended reprimand for respondent’s failure to serve the alias writ in Civil Case No. 328, while noting other deficiencies in periodic reporting and performance. The Supreme Court re‑docketed the letter as a regular administrative matter (Aug. 6, 2001); respondent offered to submit the case on the pleadings (manifestation noted Oct. 22, 2001), while complainant failed to timely manifest and was required to show cause (Nov. 25, 2002) and later admonished.
The Court considered Rule 39, Sec. 14 (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) on returns and mandatory 30‑day periodic reports, and Rule 141, Sec. 9 of the Revised Rules of Court on sheriff’s fees and estimated expenses. Weighing the OCA report and the pleadings, the Court found respondent guilty of neglect of dut...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent commit neglect of duty and grave abuse of authority in failing to properly implement and report on the writs of execution in Civil Cases Nos. 334, 328, 352 and 367?
- Are respondent’s asserted excuses (the alleged poverty of judgment debtors/humanitarian considerations, plaintiff’s failure to deposit estimated expenses, and the priority of serving principal borrowers before co‑makers) lawful defenses to non‑service or delay?
- What disciplinary sanction, if any,...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)