A.M. No. P-01-1492 - Garcia vs. Yared

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-01-1492)

Factual Background

The complainant alleged that the writs of execution in the cited civil cases were not implemented properly and efficiently by respondent, and that the judgments remained unsatisfied for a long period. In Civil Case No. 334, complainant pointed to a last Return of Service dated October 3, 1997, and he expressed disbelief that the sheriff could not locate any property of the defendants, who were described as MTC personnel. Complainant also referenced earlier reports suggesting that those defendants’ wages were low, and he argued that such conditions should have prompted more diligent execution activity despite the passage of time. In Civil Case No. 328, complainant alleged that respondent did not take further action after an order for an Alias Writ of Execution was obtained on December 14, 1992. In Civil Case No. 352, complainant asserted that respondent’s actions were inconsistent with a court directive, and that at least one defendant owning real property in the locality had not been served; complainant linked the alleged failure to respondent’s plan to travel to Cebu City and to the existence of an order dated July 21, 1999 directing respondent to look into the records of the Municipal Assessor without circumventing the properties and decision. In Civil Case No. 367, complainant attached copies of the sheriff’s return of service dated August 2 and August 31, 1999, and he submitted photographs intended to negate a claimed absence of personal or real properties by a defendant.

Procedural History and Administrative Processing

After the letter-complaint was filed, the Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo required respondent to submit a comment within ten days, which respondent did through an Answer/Comment dated November 19, 1999. The Court later re-docketed the matter as a regular administrative case by a resolution dated August 6, 2001 and directed the parties to manifest within ten days whether they were willing to submit the case for decision based on the pleadings already filed. Respondent manifested willingness; the Court noted this on October 22, 2001. Complainant later filed an inquiry regarding the case status, noted in a resolution dated May 8, 2002, but he did not manifest his willingness. The Court then issued a show-cause resolution dated November 25, 2002, requiring complainant to explain why disciplinary action for failure to manifest willingness and to comply with the earlier resolution should not be taken. Complainant later filed compliance dated January 14, 2002, explaining that his workload and compliance demands from Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) prevented timely compliance.

Respondent’s Explanation in His Comment

Respondent denied improper conduct and offered explanations for each civil case. For Civil Case No. 334, he claimed that he furnished the defendants with the writ but that they, being mere employees of the Municipal Trial Court, could not afford payment. He added that he attempted to locate real or personal properties but allegedly obtained negative results, and that by court order an alias writ was issued and served unsatisfied due to claims of partial payments by the principal borrower. He likewise asserted that a second alias writ reflected partial payments and was likewise returned unsatisfied.

For Civil Case No. 328, respondent stated that he intentionally did not serve the alias writ upon the defendants because it was allegedly of judicial notice that the spouses were jobless with multiple dependents and ailing family circumstances. He also asserted that the plaintiff bank failed to provide humanitarian justification for seizure actions, contending that a refrigerator should not have been seized under Rule 39, Section 13 (b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, because it served as livelihood equipment and storage for the ailing mother’s medicine. Respondent further claimed that the spouses’ real property could not be proceeded against because it had allegedly become an acquired asset of the Philippine National Bank.

For Civil Case No. 352, respondent explained that the clerk of court did not issue the writ until legal fees were finally received, and that delays were attributable to plaintiff bank’s failure to pay such fees and deposit amounts to defray respondent’s travel expenses to Cebu City. He also stated that upon inquiry with the Municipal Assessor he found that the husband of defendant Fabia Vizano owned a real property in his name. Since the husband was not a party to the case, respondent stated that he did not attach the property, because he had no authority to attach properties of persons under execution other than the judgment debtor. Respondent further reasoned that he believed he should first serve the writ on the principal borrowers residing in Cebu City before applying it to co-makers located in the locality, because proceeding against co-makers required a showing of the principal borrower’s default.

For Civil Case No. 367, respondent claimed that defendant Leonardo Bernadez had no personal or real properties, and that the house shown in complainant’s photographs was where the defendant resided with his family but was not owned by Bernadez; it was allegedly owned by Bernadez’s son who was not a party to the case.

Complainant’s Reply and Challenge

In reply, complainant argued that respondent’s excuses were untenable. As to Civil Case No. 334, complainant maintained that it was preposterous to claim defendants had no personal properties, given the alleged prevalence of home appliances in ordinary households. As to Civil Case No. 328, complainant argued that respondent admitted non-service of the alias writ and that this constituted neglect of duty because sheriff’s duty to serve execution writs was purely ministerial. Finally, as to Civil Case No. 352, complainant contended that respondent improperly substituted his own judgment regarding the proper order of enforcement, by insisting that service and execution must proceed first against principal borrowers before co-makers.

OCA Report and the Court’s Evaluation of the Allegations

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted a report dated June 14, 2001. Relative to Civil Case No. 334, the OCA observed that respondent’s claim of inability to locate properties did not overcome the presumption that, absent contrary evidence, a sheriff regularly performed official duty, citing Navale vs. Court of Appeals. Relative to Civil Case No. 328, the OCA characterized respondent’s admission that he intentionally did not serve the alias writ as untenable, emphasizing that service and satisfaction are different matters and that ministerial duties require action to serve the writ even if the outcome is likely unsatisfied. Relative to Civil Case No. 352, the OCA found no irregularity regarding the sheriff’s estimate of travel costs because the writ still required serving a defendant who resided in Cebu City, even if other defendants resided locally. Relative to Civil Case No. 367, the OCA found complainant’s photograph evidence less credible than respondent’s bank document supporting respondent’s claim that the property belonged to the defendant’s son.

The OCA recommended reprimand and found neglect only for Civil Case No. 328. The Court, however, disagreed as to the breadth of fault, holding that respondent was also guilty of neglect of duty and grave abuse of authority in Civil Cases Nos. 334, 352, and 367, grounded on respondent’s systemic failure to comply with mandatory rules on returns and periodic reporting.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Mandatory Rules on Returns and Reporting; Ministerial Nature of Execution

The Court anchored its ruling on Section 14 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates how a writ must be returned and what reports a sheriff must submit when execution cannot be completed within thirty days. The Court emphasized that the sheriff must execute and return the writ within the time provided by the rules and must submit periodic reports every thirty days regarding the proceedings taken until full satisfaction or expiration. The Court found that respondent’s compliance with periodic reporting was sporadic, resulting in the plaintiff bank not being regularly informed of the actions taken in connection with the writs in the four civil cases. Because the returns and reports were not consistently filed, the Court held that the presumption of regularity of performance could not be invoked in respondent’s favor.

The Court further stressed that execution is the fruit and end of the suit and the life of law; an unexecuted judgment is an empty victory. The Court reiterated that, absent a contrary court order, sheriffs must ensure that execution is not unduly delayed. On that basis, the Court treated respondent’s omissions not as mere delay but as conduct that undermined public trust and the faithful administration of justice.

Rejection of Respondent’s Substantive Excuses for Delay and Non-Service

Beyond reporting failures, the Court rejected respondent’s justifications on the substantive execution issues. The Court held that the non-implementation of execution in Civil Cases Nos. 334 and 352 could not be justified by respondent’s claim that the plaintiff bank did not provide financial assistance for expenses. The Court invoked Rule 141, Section 9 (Revised Rules of Court), which allocates to the requesting party the obligation to pay the sheriff’s expenses in serving or executing processes, but also provides a mechanism for estimation by the sheriff, court approval, deposit with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, disbursement, liquidation, and refund of any unspent portion. The Court concluded that the rule does not allow the sheriff to wait for the winning party’s representative to provide funds; rather, the sheriff is obliged to estimate expenses, obtain court approval, secure deposits, and proceed with immediate execution.

As to Civil Case No. 328, the

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-01-1492)

The complainant, Renato Miguel D. Garcia, filed a letter-complaint dated September 29, 1999 against respondent Pershing T. Yared, Sheriff III of the Municipal Trial Court, Canlaon City, Negros Oriental.
The complainant charged respondent with neglect of duty and grave abuse of authority in relation to the implementation of Civil Cases Nos. 334, 328, 352, and 367.
The underlying civil actions were collection of sum of money and damages, where complainant’s bank, the Rural Bank of Guihulngan (Negros Oriental), Inc., was the plaintiff and prevailing party.
The Court treated the matter as an administrative case by re-docketing it as a regular administrative matter in a Resolution dated August 6, 2001.
The Court required both parties to manifest within ten days if they were willing to submit the case for decision based on the pleadings, and respondent manifested willingness in the manner required by the Court.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The complainant was Renato Miguel D. Garcia, who acted as President and Manager of the Rural Bank of Guihulngan (Negros Oriental), Inc.
Respondent was Pershing T. Yared, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court, Canlaon City.
The Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo required respondent to comment on the complaint within ten days from receipt via an order dated October 27, 1999.
Respondent submitted an Answer/Comment on November 19, 1999, addressing Civil Cases Nos. 334, 328, 352, and 367.
The complainant filed a Reply on August 28, 2000.
The Court noted the status of the case through several resolutions, including a resolution in November 2002 requiring the complainant to show cause for failure to manifest willingness to submit the case for decision.
The Court ultimately resolved the administrative matter by imposing a fine on respondent and issuing a stern warning.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainant asserted that the civil judgments remained unsatisfied because the writs of execution were not implemented properly and efficiently by respondent.
For Civil Case No. 334, the complainant alleged that the last Return of Service was made on October 3, 1997 and that no effective execution beyond that point occurred.
For Civil Case No. 328, the complainant alleged that after an Alias Writ of Execution was obtained on December 14, 1992 for P 4,908.10, no further action was taken.
For Civil Case No. 352, the complainant alleged that respondent signed a receipt for the writ on November 18, 1998 and later submitted an estimate of travel cost for service in Cebu City, yet one defendant owning real property in the locality had not been served.
For Civil Case No. 367, the complainant alleged that respondent’s returns of service reflected that a defendant had no personal and real properties, but the complainant submitted photos meant to negate that claim.
The complainant also challenged respondent’s explanations as being preposterous, including the contention that execution could not be delayed based on claims of poverty, humanitarian reasons, or perceived priorities among defendants.

Respondent’s Explanations

For Civil Case No. 334, respondent claimed that he furnished the defendants with the writ but that the defendants, whom he described as MTC employees, allegedly could not afford to pay due to their meager salaries.
Respondent argued that efforts to locate real or personal property owned by the defendants yielded negative results and that alias writs were issued and served unsatisfied due to partial payments.
Respondent asserted that he served the writs using his own money because the plaintiff bank did not provide funds for execution expenses.
For Civil Case No. 328, respondent admitted he did not serve the alias writ dated December 20, 1992 on the defendants, justifying the omission by the alleged joblessness of the spouses and their humanitarian situation.
Respondent further claimed that he did not proceed against the spouses’ real property due to the property purportedly becoming an acquired asset of the Philippine National Bank.
Respondent asserted that he refused seizure of a refrigerator for humanitarian reasons and invoked Rule 39, Section 13 (b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as a basis.
For Civil Case No. 352, respondent claimed that the clerk of court did not issue the writ until legal fees were received and that the plaintiff bank failed to deposit fees to defray respondent’s travel expenses to Cebu City.
Respondent stated that he discovered through inquiry with the Municipal Assessor that a husband of one defendant allegedly held real property in his name, but he did not attach the property because, according to respondent, he lacked authority to attach property of non-debtors.
Respondent contended that he believed the writ should be served first on the principal borrowers residing in Cebu City before proceeding against co-makers located in the locality.
For Civil Case No. 367, respondent claimed that the defendant had no personal or real properties and that a house shown in the complainant’s complaint pictures allegedly belonged to the defendant’s son, not the defendant.

OCA Report Findings

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reported that for Civil Case No. 334, respondent’s claim of unsuccessful efforts to locate property did not overcome the presumption of regularity of official duty absent contrary evidence.
The OCA characterized respondent’s justification for not serving the alias writ in Civil Case No. 328 as untenable because service and satisfaction of a writ were distinct matters.
The OCA found noth