Facts:

The case involves Gedeon M. Jumio as the complainant against Atty. Marietta Egay-Eviota, the Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Provincial Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, and Samuel G. Basco, a Deputy Sheriff of the same court. The events leading to the complaint began with a labor case, NLRC Case No. SUB-RABX-10-07-00438-89, where Jumio was awarded a judgment against Siargao Shipping Lines, Inc. and its representatives for the amount of P65,971.34, along with an order for his reinstatement to his former position. The original writ of execution was issued on May 28, 1990, and was received by respondent Eviota on June 11, 1990. She delegated the execution of the writ to Basco on the same day. Basco attempted to enforce the judgment by sending notices of garnishment to nine banks in Surigao City on June 15, 1990, but discovered that the shipping company had no accounts with them, except for one bank that had a prior lien on the deposits. Basco proposed to levy a...

Facts:

1. Background of the Case:
   Complainant Gedeon M. Jumio filed a complaint against respondents Atty. Marietta Egay-Eviota, Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Provincial Sheriff, and Samuel G. Basco, Deputy Sheriff, for their alleged failure to fully execute the original and alias writs of execution in NLRC Case No. SUB-RABX-10-07-00438-89, entitled "Gedeon M. Jumio vs. Siargao Shipping Lines, Inc., et al."

2. Original Writ of Execution:
   The original writ, dated May 28, 1990, directed the Provincial Sheriff to collect P65,971.34 from Siargao Shipping Lines, Inc. and/or Sabina Andit Tiu and/or the Manager of the company. It also ordered the reinstatement of Jumio to his former position.

3. Delegation of Implementation:
   Respondent Eviota received the writ on June 11, 1990, and delegated its implementation to Deputy Sheriff Basco on the same day.

4. Attempted Enforcement:
   On June 15, 1990, Basco sent notices of garnishment to nine banks in Surigao City. However, the shipping company had no accounts in these banks except for the Philippine National Bank, which had a prior lien on the deposits.

5. Proposed Levy on Motor Launch:
   Basco proposed to levy a motor launch belonging to the company and demanded P1,200.00 from Jumio for expenses. Jumio could only produce P200.00, leading Basco to return the writ unsatisfied on August 16, 1991.

6. Respondent Eviota's Defense:
   Eviota claimed she delegated the writ's implementation to Basco due to her other duties as Clerk of Court and her gender. She also stated that the original writ had expired and advised Jumio to secure an alias writ, which he allegedly refused.

7. Issuance of Alias Writ:
   An alias writ was issued on April 28, 1993, and assigned to Deputy Sheriff Juan Gonzaga, who successfully enforced it.

8. Basco's Defense:
   Basco claimed he served the writ on Tiu on June 26, 1990, but she refused to receive it. He also argued that the writ's failure was due to Jumio's refusal to deposit the required sheriff's expenses.

9. Findings of Executive Judge Lozada:
   Judge Lozada found that the writ was not served at the correct address in Dapa, Surigao del Norte. He also noted that Basco focused only on the monetary award and ignored Jumio's reinstatement.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Duty of Sheriffs:
   Sheriffs are required to execute writs with reasonable celerity and promptness. Basco failed to fully enforce the writ, particularly the reinstatement of Jumio, which did not require any expenses.

2. Supervision by Clerks of Court:
   Clerks of court must exercise diligence in issuing writs and supervising their implementation. Eviota failed to properly supervise Basco, despite delegating the task to him.

3. Service of Writs:
   The writ was not properly served at the correct address, and Basco's actions were limited to the monetary award, ignoring the reinstatement order.

4. Responsibility for Expenses:
   While Jumio's failure to deposit the required sheriff's expenses contributed to the non-satisfaction of the monetary award, Basco's overall negligence in enforcing the writ was the primary issue.

5. Admonishment for Eviota:
   Eviota's failure to personally attend to the writ's implementation, despite her other duties, warranted an admonishment to ensure closer supervision in the future.