Title
Florendo vs. Enrile
Case
A.M. No. P-92-695
Decision Date
Dec 7, 1994
Deputy sheriff Enrile failed to enforce a writ of demolition after collecting P5,200.00 without receipts, leading to dismissal for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and dereliction of duty.

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-92-695)

Allegations Against the Respondent

Cynthia A. Florendo filed a sworn letter-complaint against Exequiel Enrile, alleging that the deputy sheriff failed to enforce a writ of demolition despite collecting fees totaling PHP 5,200.00 for this service. The complaint stemmed from several civil ejectment cases where the MTCC ordered the defendants to vacate certain premises. After appeals affirming this order, a writ of execution was issued, which Enrile was assigned to implement.

Sequence of Events

Following the issuance of the writ of execution, the complainant sought a writ of demolition due to the defendants' refusal to vacate the premises. The MTCC granted this request, after which Enrile received payment purportedly as a sheriff's fee. Despite receiving the amount, Enrile did not execute the writ of demolition, leading to Florendo's demand for action, which was ignored, prompting her to file the complaint.

Respondent's Defense

In his response, Enrile did not deny collecting the fees but claimed that he made several attempts to advise the defendants to vacate. He stated that the defendants threatened him when he attempted to enforce the writ, which, according to him, justified his inaction. He argued that he had properly served the writ and prepared returns dated within the required timeframe, although these were filed late.

Investigation and Findings

Executive Judge Johnson L. Ballutay investigated the case and highlighted various postponements and the respondent's lack of urgency in hiring counsel. He recommended disciplinary actions, including suspension and a return of the collected fees to the complainant, based on the analysis of the delays and the respondent's actions in the execution of his duties.

Office of the Court Administrator’s Evaluation

The Office of the Court Administrator found that Enrile displayed significant neglect by failing to execute the writ, which hindered the complainants' right to a speedy resolution. The evaluation noted that he should have coordinated with the complainant's counsel and sought assistance to execute the writ effectively. It criticized Enrile’s creation of an unofficial fee structure and failure to provide receipts.

Judicial Review and Concl

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.