A.M. No. P-05-1996 - Marabe vs. Tan

The administrative case arose from a Letter-Complaint dated April 15, 2002, filed by Estelito R. Marabe, President and Chairman of the Board of Asian Hills Bank, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon.
The complaint charged Tyrone V. Tan, Sheriff IV of the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Malaybalay City, of inefficiency and ineffectiveness in executing writs of execution issued in favor of Asian Hills Bank.

Complainant alleged that despite having received advanced funds for expenses related to the execution of the writs, respondent failed to implement and execute them properly.
The writs in question were issued in the following civil cases:

Civil Case No. 192-L – Asian Hills Bank v. Fe B. Ygot, et al.
Civil Case No. 193-L – Asian Hills Bank v. Efren L. Garcia and Josephine Garcia.
Civil Case No. 194-L – Asian Hills Bank v. Lina M. Castanares, et al.
Civil Case No. 195-L – Asian Hills Bank v. Lina M. Castanares, et al.
Civil Case No. 197-L – Asian Hills Bank v. Julieta Omongos, et al.
Civil Case No. 198-L – Asian Hills Bank v. Rosita Argawanon, et al.

In his Comment dated July 8, 2002, respondent admitted receipt of six writs of execution but stated that only three (Civil Cases Nos. 193-L, 195-L, and 197-L) were to be acted upon at the request of the Bank’s counsel, Atty. Anastacio C. Rosos, Jr.
He claimed that at the time of implementation:

Some defendants were insolvent, preventing effective execution.
Defendants in Civil Case No. 193-L had promised to settle their obligations once funds were raised, while those in Civil Case No. 197-L had promised a partial payment which was not ultimately executed.
Other defendants (involving government employees) either refused to acknowledge the court order or could not have their salaries garnished due to their financial dependency on government pay.

Respondent maintained that he was still monitoring the developments in all cases for any eventual remedy to satisfy the court judgment and submitted Partial Sheriff’s Reports dated December 1, 2003, for several cases.

The case was initially referred to Executive Judge Jesus Barroso, Jr. and later to the new Executive Judge Rolando S. Venadas, Sr.
On August 9, 2004, the Investigating Judge submitted his Report and Recommendation, highlighting the following findings:

Respondent received sheriff’s fees amounting to P7,000.00 through several cashier checks.
The submitted Partial Sheriff’s Reports, all uniformly dated December 1, 2003, were deficient as they did not indicate the actual dates on which the writs were served.
There was an unexplained delay of two years from the receipt of the writs (in 2001) until their partial implementation, with no periodic reporting as mandated by law.

The veracity and timeliness of the reports were questioned, and the Investigating Judge found respondent liable for failing to act promptly.
On March 16, 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concurred with the Investigating Judge’s findings and recommended imposing a fine of P5,000.00 along with a stern warning against future similar lapses.

The case was re-docketed as a regular administrative case on April 6, 2005.
In reaching its decision, the Court adopted the factual findings of the OCA and the Investigating Judge regarding the respondent’s negligence.
The Court underscored the essential duty of a sheriff in executing writs of execution with swift and strict adherence to their court-mandated instructions.

Whether the respondent, Sheriff Tyrone V. Tan, demonstrated inefficiency and ineffectiveness in the performance of his duties by delaying and incompletely executing the writs of execution issued against defendants in several civil cases.
Whether the non-implementation of certain writs and failure to provide timely and periodic reports as required by Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court amount to a neglect of duty sanctionable under the administrative rules governing the conduct of court officers.
Whether the facts of the case warrant a penalty that is more severe than a fine – specifically, a suspension from office – in view of the respondent’s repeated and unexcused inaction.