Title
Cebu International Fice Corp. vs. Cabigon
Case
A.M. No. P-06-2107
Decision Date
Feb 14, 2007
Sheriff failed to fully execute a writ of possession, delayed reporting, and offered inadequate excuses, resulting in neglect of duty.
neglect of duty
writ of possession
judgment

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-06-2107)

Factual Background

The antecedent judicial proceeding involved an eventual writ of possession issued in connection with Civil Case No. CEB-22725. The records showed that on January 23, 2004, a writ of possession was issued by Atty. Jeoffrey S. Joaquino, then Clerk of Court and ex-officio sheriff of the RTC, Cebu City, against the defendants in Civil Case No. CEB-22725.

In September 2004, Atty. Joaquino assigned respondent to implement the writ after the regular sheriff of Branch 57 was disallowed to continue its implementation. Complainant alleged that respondent failed to fully implement the writ. Complainant claimed that respondent only managed to open the gates but not the doors of the house, despite a break-open order issued by the court. Complainant further alleged that respondent justified his inaction on the pretext that the owners were not present. Complainant stated that Atty. Joaquino had advised respondent that implementation could proceed even in the absence of the owners and that no separate break-open order was required because the writ itself carried authority to employ necessary means.

Complainant asserted that respondent repeatedly refused to implement the writ despite reminders and a letter warning him of possible administrative liability. Complainant also alleged “double-dealing” on one occasion when respondent allegedly called the complainant’s guard and asked that the defendants’ son be allowed to retrieve belongings. Respondent denied liability and explained that he had submitted his Sheriff’s Report/Comment to the RTC on June 6, 2005.

In his account, respondent described attempts to enforce the writ at different stages. He claimed that on September 14, 2004, he went to the defendants’ address to serve a notice to vacate, but was told the defendant was out; he returned on the next day and could not contact the defendant; and on September 20, 2004, he served the notice to vacate, which the defendant refused to sign. He also stated that on the same day, he was served with an order in a related incident, Civil Case No. CEB-30029, directing him to answer the second amended complaint.

Respondent further related that on December 7, 2004, he received a letter from complainant regarding implementation of the writ. He claimed that instead of replying and making a partial report, he was convinced by complainant’s counsel to proceed with implementation. He narrated that on January 19, 2005, at about 11:20 a.m., he went to the premises with Rey Tibay (representative of plaintiff) and Atty. Rolando P. Lavilla, in the presence of barangay officials, broke chains and padlocks of the iron gate and a hut outside the gate, and installed PHILMUSA Security Guards with instructions not to allow entry unless cleared by respondent or Tibay.

Respondent stated that on January 19, 2005 at past 5:00 p.m., defendant Luzviminda Retales called and requested that her son be allowed to enter briefly to get clothes for school. Respondent claimed that for humanitarian reasons, Tibay and respondent agreed to allow entry for that night only. Respondent later stated that on January 31, 2005, he was surprised to learn from Tibay that the defendants were staying at night and going out during the day. Respondent also asserted that on February 14, 2005, he wrote and served on defendant a letter informing her that the writ would be enforced on February 22, 2005.

Respondent invoked a perceived procedural obstacle. He stated that on February 18, 2005, he received a letter from defendant’s counsel informing him that the intended enforcement was premature because there was a pending incident embodied in an order dated February 11, 2005 requiring plaintiff to comment on defendants’ supplemental motion, and that continued enforcement would prompt defendants to file an administrative case. Respondent claimed that on that date he filed a manifestation and requested clarification from the court. He further stated that on March 4, 2005, he received the order denying the motion for stay/suspension and that, thereafter, he had spent expenses related to the writ, but implementation could not continue fully due to lack of logistical support from complainant and because completing implementation would require more expenses which plaintiff should have provided.

Complainant disputed respondent’s narrative. Complainant alleged that despite repeated opportunities, respondent failed to fully implement the writ and that it took him almost nine months from assignment to file his report, allegedly violating Section 14, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Court. Complainant also refuted respondent’s claim that he spent his own money, asserting that the necessary items were provided by complainant but no advance funds were remitted because respondent failed to estimate the expenses for court approval.

Office of the Court Administrator Evaluation

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the complaint and found respondent liable. The OCA underscored that sheriffs, as frontline officials of the justice system, must ensure the final stage of litigation is completed without unnecessary delay. The OCA noted that the writ of possession and the order to break open were assigned to respondent on 10 September 2004, and that the notice to vacate was served on 20 September 2004. It observed that although respondent finally implemented the writ on 19 January 2005, the implementation was not yet completed up to the time of evaluation.

The OCA characterized respondent’s delay as inexcusable and as dereliction of duty. It cited the requirement of Administrative Circular No. 12 (1 October 1985) for sheriffs to submit a progress report within ten days from receipt of the assignment order. The OCA also applied Section 4, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which requires a report to the court within thirty days from receipt of the writ if full satisfaction cannot be achieved, and every thirty days thereafter until full satisfaction or expiration. In the OCA’s view, respondent failed to comply because it took him about nine months to submit his report, allegedly only after complainant filed a motion to require him to render a report.

The OCA rejected respondent’s defense of lack of logistical support and asserted that respondent was duty-bound to collect execution expenses from complainant. It reasoned that respondent should not have waited passively for the amount to be remitted because he was obliged to submit and secure court approval of estimated expenses and fees. The OCA found no showing that respondent took the initiative to do so.

To calibrate the penalty, the OCA relied on the Court’s prior stance in cases involving similar neglect of duty. It cited Lumbre v. dela Cruz and Fajardo v. Quitalig, where the erring sheriffs were fined PhP 5,000.00 for inexcusable delay in carrying out lawful writs. The OCA recommended a fine of P5,000.00 with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. The Court adopted the OCA’s findings and recommendation.

Procedural Posture in the Supreme Court

After filing pleadings, respondent manifested on March 30, 2006 that he was willing to submit the administrative matter for resolution based on the pleadings. The Court noted that complainant failed to make a similar manifestation. Consequently, in its Resolution of October 11, 2006, the Court deemed the case submitted for resolution. The matter was then resolved based on the pleadings and the OCA’s evaluation.

Governing Standards for Sheriffs and the Court’s Findings

The Court reiterated the settled rule that a sheriff’s duty in execution is purely ministerial. The sheriff must execute the order of the court strictly to the letter and has no discretion whether to execute the judgment. When a writ is placed in the hands of the sheriff, the sheriff must proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness and execute according to the writ’s mandate to ensure the order is executed without undue delay. The Court emphasized the institutional role of sheriffs because they execute the final judgments of courts, and the execution of a final judgment is the “fruit and end” of the suit and the life of the law.

In affirming the public-trust nature of the office, the Court invoked the jurisprudential doctrine in Escobar Vda. De Lopez v. Luna, which required sheriffs to perform honestly and faithfully to the best of their abilities, to uphold the tenet that a public office is a public trust, and to act circumspectly and properly to avoid any suspicion that could taint the judiciary.

Applying these standards, the Court found respondent remiss in duties. The Court noted that respondent executed the writ on September 14, 2004, the day after assignment, but the execution was not fully accomplished because defendants were not in the premises. It further noted that respondent was able to serve the writ on September 20, 2004, but the defendant refused to sign it. The Court then observed that it was only on January 19, 2005, with barangay assistance, that respondent broke the padlocks and secured the premises with security guards.

The Court highlighted the requirement of Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court regarding return and reports. It pointed out that respondent did not comply with timely reporting. The Court observed that the writ was placed in respondent’s hands on September 13, 2004, while the return was made only on June 3, 2005, or more than eight months after partial execution and after complainant filed a motion to require a report. The Court relied on San Jose v. Centeno in underscoring that failure to submit a report on time constitutes neglect in the performance of duty.

The Court also rejected the attempt to treat respondent’s prior procedural positio

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms