Facts:

This case involves an administrative complaint against Paisal M. Arabia, who served as Deputy Sheriff IV assigned to Branch 5 of the Regional Trial Court in Iligan City. The complainant, Atty. Gerardo B. Padilla, represented the plaintiffs, who were the prevailing parties in three civil cases, specifically Civil Cases Nos. 1765 and 1769 entitled "Cheryl B. Deleste v. Vicente Lura and Selverio Paasa," and "Cheryl B. Deleste v. Alfonso Brazil and Felipe Macarandan," respectively. On November 29, 1991, Deputy Sheriff Arabia received ₱1,000 from Cheryl B. Deleste to cover expenses associated with enforcing the writs of execution issued by the court. The receipt for this payment, documented in a "petty cash voucher," was annexed to the complaint. Although the writs were served, they were returned unsatisfied, with Deputy Sheriff Arabia asserting that the 60-day validity period of the writs had expired without the judgment debtors settling their debts. He

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Atty. Gerardo B. Padilla against Deputy Sheriff Paisal M. Arabia of Branch 5, Regional Trial Court of Iligan City.
• The complaint arises from the conduct of the respondent in relation to the execution of writs in three separate civil cases.

Details of the Transactions and Enforcement Attempts

• In Civil Cases Nos. 1765 and 1769 (“Cheryl B. Deleste v. Vicente Lura and Selverio Paasa” and “Cheryl B. Deleste v. Alfonso Brazil and Felipe Macarandan”), on November 29, 1991, respondent received a payment of P1,000.00 from plaintiff Cheryl B. Deleste to cover expenses for enforcing the writs of execution.
• The payment was evidenced by a “petty cash voucher” signed by respondent (Annex “A” in the complaint).
• The writs were served on the defendants, who possessed real properties, yet the writs were returned unsatisfied.
• Respondent’s explanation for the failure was that the 60-day life of the writs had expired because he allegedly allowed the judgment debtors “ample time” to settle their obligations.
• In the same cases, after a motion for alias writs of execution was filed, similar circumstances recurred where the writs were returned unsatisfied.
• In Civil Case No. 1769, respondent claimed he served the writ on his own initiative despite non-payment of his fees by the plaintiff and counsel.
• In Civil Case No. 1765, he stated that on his own initiative, he collected P1,500.00 from the judgment debtor and deposited it with the Clerk of Court as his commission.
• In a later instance relating to Civil Case No. 1920 (“Refractories Corporation of the Philippines v. Dr. Pedro Sabayle”),
• Complainant, acting as counsel for the prevailing party, sought an estimate of expenses for serving the writ of execution.
• Respondent, through a letter dated August 31, 1992, instructed complainant to deposit P500.00 with the Clerk of Court, assuring liquidation upon his return of the writ.
• Despite complying with the deposit request, the writ was returned unsatisfied.
• Respondent later explained that the deposited P500.00 could not be withdrawn because it had been erroneously recorded as “proceeds of the writ.”

Respondent’s Contentions and Subsequent Actions

• In his comment on the case, respondent reiterated his reasons for non-enforcement:
• In Civil Cases Nos. 1765 and 1769, he granted extra time to judgment debtors for “compelling and humanitarian reasons,” thereby allowing the 60-day period to lapse.
• For the alias writs, he attributed the lack of enforcement to the failure of the plaintiff and counsel to pay his fees and the additional levy expenses.
• He contended that he even used personal funds to provide service due to the expenses incurred from traveling from Iligan City to Cagayan de Oro City.
• In his rejoinder, respondent maintained that:
• He received the P1,000.00 on the initiative of the plaintiff, without any demand for his fees under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
• The money was not meant as his legal fees and was not processed through the normal channel involving the Clerk of Court and the Ex-Officio Sheriff.
• Thus, he argued, he was under no obligation to account for or liquidate the amount.

Prior Cases and Context

• The case references previous disciplinary actions such as A.M. No. P-89-325, where respondent was suspended for posting a notice of sale for an insufficient period and for tardy return of a writ.
• Furthermore, comparisons are drawn with Eduarte v. Ramos and Moya v. Bassig, wherein similar misconduct by deputy sheriffs was met with penalties ranging from suspension to dismissal.

Issue:

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Arabia failed to execute the writs of execution in Civil Cases Nos. 1765, 1769, and 1920 within the prescribed time period mandated by the Rules of Court.

• Did his inaction and granting of extra time to judgment debtors constitute neglect of duty?
• Is there any legal basis or discretion granted to a deputy sheriff to delay the execution of a writ beyond the 60-day period?

Whether the manner of receipt and the subsequent appropriation of funds (P1,000.00 and P1,500.00) by respondent was in accordance with the provisions of Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.

• Was the money received properly accounted for and liquidated as required by the Rules of Court?
• Did the failure to deposit and properly process the payment lead to an unauthorized appropriation of funds?

• Whether the conduct of the respondent, specifically his unauthorized delay in executing the writs and misappropriation of funds, constitutes serious misconduct and dereliction of duty that justifies dismissal from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)