Facts:

The case revolves around Rafael D. Lacuata, the complainant, and Antonio J. M. Bautista, the respondent and Deputy Sheriff at the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila. The events leading to the complaint began on March 20, 1989, when Branch 49 of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan rendered a judgment favoring the defendants in Civil Case No. U-4584 — "Rafael B. Lacuata vs. Honor Marketing Corporation and Pedro Repolda." This judgment was later reversed by the Court of Appeals on July 31, 1991, and the Supreme Court affirmed this reversal on May 13, 1992, leading to a remand for execution. Subsequently, on May 10, 1993, the trial court issued an order for the issuance of an alias writ of execution, as the original writ had gone unexecuted. The Clerk of Court in Makati was tasked with implementing this order, which was assigned to Bautista.

Complainant Lacuata alleged that Bautista failed to enforce the alias writ desp

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Complainant Rafael D. Lacuata filed an affidavit-complaint on October 13, 1993, charging respondent Deputy Sheriff Antonio J. M. Bautista with grave misconduct and gross negligence.
• The alleged misconduct arose from respondent’s failure to execute an alias writ of execution, which was issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati after being directed to do so.
• The alias writ originated from a civil case involving Honor Marketing Corporation and Pedro Repolda, where a judgment favoring Lacuata was initially reversed by the Court of Appeals and affirmed by the Supreme Court upon elevation of the case.

Chronology of Judicial Proceedings

• On March 20, 1989, Branch 49 of the RTC of Urdaneta, Pangasinan rendered judgment in favor of the defendants in Civil Case No. U-4584 titled “Rafael B. Lacuata vs. Honor Marketing Corporation and Pedro Repolda.”
• The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the original judgment on July 31, 1991, and the reversal was later affirmed by the Supreme Court on May 13, 1992.
• Following the appellate decision, the case was remanded to the trial court for the execution of judgment, leading to the issuance of an alias writ of execution on May 10, 1993.

Implementation of the Alias Writ

• The RTC of Makati, through its Clerk of Court, was directed to implement the alias writ.
• The specific task of executing the writ was assigned to respondent Bautista in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff.
• Complainant asserts that despite several opportunities, respondent failed to enforce the writ effectively, thereby depriving him of the monetary judgment awarded in the underlying civil case.

Allegations of Improper Conduct and Fee Collection

• Complainant alleged that respondent demanded P2,000.00 ostensibly to cover expenses for enforcing the writ, but ultimately only received P1,000.00 from him.
• Respondent admitted receiving P1,050.00—noted as collectible legal fees under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court—but claimed to have made diligent efforts, including multiple trips to locate the office of Honor Marketing Corporation.
• Evidence suggested that the physical proximity (only four blocks away) of the defendant’s office from the Regional Trial Court of Makati rendered respondent’s claim of logistical difficulty implausible.

Investigation and Findings

• Acting on the recommendation of the Deputy Court Administrator, the case was referred to Executive Judge Salvador S. Abad Santos of RTC Makati for investigation.
• During the investigation, complainant reaffirmed his allegations while respondent maintained his defense by submitting his Comment as his Answer.
• Judge Abad Santos’ report, submitted on April 20, 1994, recommended respondent’s dismissal on grounds of grave misconduct and gross negligence, emphasizing the discrepancies in respondent’s explanation and the excessive fee collected without court authority.

Observations on Misconduct

• The investigating judge highlighted respondent’s repeated, yet ineffective, attempts to locate Honor Marketing Corporation’s office, including five trips while simultaneously suggesting the presence of another company at the said location.
• The report underscored the violation of Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which strictly regulates the collection of expenses or fees by a sheriff.
• The findings pointed to an atrophied sense of duty and integrity on the part of the respondent, especially considering the minimal distance between the RTC Makati and the office of Honor Marketing Corporation.

Issue:

• Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Antonio J. M. Bautista’s failure to properly execute the alias writ constituted grave misconduct and gross negligence in the performance of his duties.
• Whether respondent’s acceptance and direct collection of fees from the complainant, in violation of Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, was justified under the circumstances.
• Whether the evidence on record sufficiently demonstrated that respondent’s actions were prejudicial to the efficient administration of justice, thereby warranting severe administrative sanctions.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)