Case Summary (A.M. No. P-14-3214)
Background of the Case
On July 31, 2002, Branch 27 of the Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering defendant Hilario Raut-Raut to restore possession of properties left by their deceased father, Leopoldo Udarbe, and to pay the plaintiffs unrealized profits. Following this judgment, a Writ of Execution was issued on November 12, 2003, instructing Sheriff Gaputan to enforce the decision.
Allegations Against the Respondent
The complainant alleged that Sheriff Gaputan improperly executed the Writ of Execution by delivering an incorrect portion of the property and failing to follow proper legal procedures. Vicente claimed that comports were not followed, specifically that the plaintiffs did not file a required bond and that Gaputan executed the writ against properties that were incorrectly attributed to him rather than the subject of the sale.
Execution Issues and Delays
Vicente Raut-Raut expressed concern regarding the long delay in the return of the Sheriff’s Report, which was not completed until July 14, 2005—almost two years after receiving the writ. Furthermore, an amended return was filed on April 24, 2009, which was claimed to be beyond the five-year execution limitation period, rendering it ineffective.
Respondent's Defense
In response to the allegations, Sheriff Gaputan refuted claims of misconduct, contending that the execution was hindered by various factors, including the necessity to delineate the property to define the plaintiffs' rightful shares, the death of the defendant, and the plaintiffs' inability to cover the costs of surveying the land. He also believed he had provided sufficient compliance by reporting the issues faced during execution.
Administrative Review
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a review and found Sheriff Gaputan guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty, recommending a fine of P2,000. This recommendation was then re-docketed as a formal administrative complaint by the court.
Court's Findings on Neglect of Duty
The court affirmed the OCA's findings regarding Gaputan's failure to execute his duties with due diligence, particularly in failing to file a timely periodic report on the status of the writ as mandated by the Rules of Court. The court highlighted t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. P-14-3214)
Case Overview
- The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Vicente Raut-Raut, represented by Jovencio Raut-Raut, against Romeo B. Gaputan, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Gingoog City.
- The complaint alleges abuse of authority related to the execution of a judgment in Civil Case No. 515-M, titled Lolita U. Estabaya, et al. vs. Hilario Raut-Raut.
Background of the Case
- Complainant Raut-Raut is an heir of Hilario Raut-Raut, the defendant in the civil case.
- On July 31, 2002, the Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, directing Hilario Raut-Raut to restore possession of certain properties and to pay unrealized profits to the plaintiffs.
Execution of Judgment
- On November 12, 2003, the trial court issued a Writ of Execution for Gaputan to enforce the judgment.
- Complainant contended that Gaputan executed the writ improperly, as the plaintiffs had not filed a required bond and that the execution involved property not subject to the judgment.
Allegations Against Respondent
- Gaputan executed the writ against the titled property of Vicente and Ruben Raut-Raut, despite it being awarded to them under the Comprehensive Agr