A.M. No. P-05-2088 - Sibulo vs. San Jose

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-05-2088)

Factual Background: Delay in Execution and Conflicting Sheriff Returns

After the writ issued, complainant claimed that respondent sheriff failed to implement the judgment with reasonable dispatch. More than a year after the decision became final, complainant, on November 3, 1999, informed the judge of respondent’s delay through a letter-complaint. The judge required respondent to explain. In response, respondent averred that he made a return on the writ a few days after February 4, 1999.

Upon verification, however, the records of the case contained no sheriff’s return. Complainant also asserted that the writ remained unimplemented until after complainant’s father followed up on November 16, 2000, at which point respondent made a return dated November 17, 2000. Complainant then prayed that respondent explain why the decision had not been executed despite payment of sheriff’s fees and repeated demands, and asked for an investigation of the alleged irregular and anomalous delay.

Respondent denied that he failed to implement the writ promptly. He claimed that after receiving a copy of the writ on January 19, 1999, he implemented it in the afternoon of that same day, and that service was made in the presence of the Deputy Sheriff in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court. He later contended that the writ had not proceeded because the defendant had allegedly no properties subject to levy. He further suggested that the prevailing party had the duty to assist by informing him of leviable properties, and he added that complainant did not coordinate with him after November 3, 1999. Respondent emphasized that, after he learned that complainant’s father followed up on November 16, 2000, he immediately made a return on November 17, 2000 to notify complainant to look for and inform him of any properties belonging to the defendant. He also argued that the sheriff’s reports were filed through the Receiving or Docket Clerk, and thus should not be attributed to him if misplaced.

Administrative Initiative and OCA Referral

A separate administrative motion unfolded when the OCA received a letter dated April 17, 2002 from Judge Jose P. Nacional, who recommended investigation of respondent’s failure to execute the writ. Judge Nacional reported that after assuming duty as Acting Presiding Judge, he required respondent to explain the failure and to submit a regular return until the writs were fully implemented and terminated. Respondent allegedly did not comply. The record also showed that complainant informed the judge that Sibulo’s case remained unsatisfied.

When the matter was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Corazon A. Tordilla, the investigating report found respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty, including a finding that respondent did not follow the procedure in Rule 39, Section 9(b) when serving the writ on Delia Santiago. The investigating process also noted that as of November 12, 2003, respondent had already been dropped from the roll for absence without official leave (AWOL) beginning August 1, 2002.

Upon further evaluation, the OCA found respondent indubitably guilty of gross neglect of duty. It recommended that, because respondent had already been dismissed from service previously, he should be considered dismissed with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.

The Court’s Evaluation of the Rules Governing Sheriffs’ Duties

The Court held that a sheriff’s duty to execute a judgment is mandatory and that a sheriff must make a return within the periods provided by the Rules of Court. The Court cited Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that the writ of execution is returnable to the court immediately after the judgment had been satisfied in whole or in part. If satisfaction cannot be achieved within thirty (30) days after the sheriff’s receipt of the writ, the officer must report to the court and state the reasons for the failure, and must submit reports to the court every thirty (30) days until the judgment is satisfied in full or the writ’s effectivity expires.

Applying these standards, the Court observed that the writ in Sibulo’s case issued on December 17, 1998, yet respondent made his return only on November 17, 2000—almost two years later. Respondent insisted that he made the return a few days after February 4, 1999, but the Court noted that no such return appeared in the case records. The Court also found that respondent’s explanations were internally inconsistent. Before the Executive Judge, he claimed he received the writ on January 19, 1999 and served it on the afternoon of that date. Yet, in his return dated November 17, 2000, respondent alleged receipt on February 4, 1999. The Court viewed these conflicting details as seriously undermining respondent’s claim that he actually implemented the writ.

The Court further noted respondent’s failure to keep promises made during the investigation. Respondent allegedly promised to furnish a copy of the writ to the investigating judge but did not do so. The Court also emphasized that the judgment remained unsatisfied even as of the time the investigation was conducted on November 26, 2002. It treated the combined delay as evidence of gross neglect because it showed that respondent did not comply with the required periodic reporting and dispatch.

Lack of Required Reports and Rebuttal of Respondent’s “No Properties” Defense

The Court held that respondent’s failure to make the required reports supported a finding of gross neglect. Respondent attempted to justify his non-execution by claiming he found no personal property of the defendant that could be levied upon. The Court did not accept this explanation. It referred to the stenographic notes of complainant’s testimony, which the Court said revealed the opposite.

In TSN, 26 November 2002, complainant testified that Delia Santiago offered to settle by turning over a television set, and that she could remit payment through the Clerk of Court of the MTCC. Complainant added that, after follow-ups, he reported that Delia Santiago would remit money to the Clerk of Court, Mr. Renato San Juan, but no money was remitted. The Court concluded that respondent had knowledge of leviable properties or at least of means to satisfy the judgment and thus could not maintain that there were none. The Court reasoned that respondent even waited and gave Delia Santiago one week, and that once payment was not delivered to the Clerk of Court, respondent should have proceeded to levy on personal properties in accordance with the Rules.

The Court also rejected respondent’s attempt to excuse the failure by citing workload. It noted that the investigating judge found respondent failed to implement other writs as well. The Court took judicial notice that respondent had already been previously found guilty of negligence in the performance of duty and fined P1,000, and that the Court had warned him that future similar conduct would be dealt with more severely.

Proper Characterization of the Offense and Effect of Prior Dismissal

The Court held that gross neglect of duty constitutes a grave offense carrying the penalty of dismissal. It recognized, however, that dismissal could no longer be imposed in the present administrative case because respondent had already been dismissed from service due to AWOL effective August 1, 2002, pursuant to the Court’s Resolution dated February 24, 2003 in A.M. No. 03-1-20-MTCC. The Court still ruled that the prior dismissal did not render the matter moot. It reasoned that administrative liability could not be avoided merely because dismissal had already been effected elsewhere.

Accordingly, the Cou

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-05-2088)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Hernando O. Sibulo filed a verified complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator against Muriel S. San Jose, Sheriff III of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Naga City, for gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and acts prejudicial to public interest.
The Court evaluated the administrative reports, the sheriff’s explanations, and the records of Civil Case No. 10454 referred to in the complaint.
The OCA concluded that the respondent sheriff was indubitably guilty of gross neglect of duty and recommended a penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits and prejudice to re-employment.
The Court agreed with the OCA’s finding but adjusted the penalty because the respondent was already dismissed from the service for absence without official leave (AWOL).
The Court ultimately imposed a fine and forfeiture of benefits, with disqualification from re-employment, because dismissal was no longer attainable.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainant obtained a favorable decision in Civil Case No. 10454, Sibulo v. Federis and Santiago for Damages, rendered on October 19, 1998 by Judge Julian C. Ocampo III.
The decision became final and executory because the defendants did not file an appeal.
A writ of execution was issued on December 17, 1998.
On November 3, 1999, more than a year after finality, the complainant informed the judge through a letter-complaint about the respondent sheriff’s delay in implementing the writ.
The judge required an explanation, and the respondent asserted that he made a return on the writ a few days after February 4, 1999.
Verification of the records showed that no sheriff’s return was found in the case records.
The complainant’s father followed up on November 16, 2000, and the respondent then made a return dated November 17, 2000.
The complainant alleged that the writ was not implemented until after the follow-up and that the respondent ignored repeated demands and payment of sheriff’s fees.
The complainant prayed for investigation of the respondent’s irregular and anomalous delay.
In his comment, the respondent denied that he failed to implement the writ with reasonable dispatch and claimed he implemented it in the afternoon after receiving the writ on January 19, 1999 and served it in the presence of the Deputy Sheriff.
The respondent alternatively contended that the writ was not implemented because the defendant had no properties to levy upon, and he argued that the prevailing party should have assisted by informing him of reachable properties.
After receiving information of the complainant’s follow-up, the respondent claimed he immediately made a return on November 17, 2000 to notify the complainant to look for and inform him of properties.
The respondent argued that misplaced reports could not be attributed to him because the sheriff’s report was filed through the Receiving or Docket Clerk.
An additional factor emerged: Executive Judge Corazon A. Tordilla and the investigating process found procedural non-compliance in the service of the writ and identified gross neglect by the respondent.

Administrative Timeline

On January 4, 2001, the complainant filed the administrative complaint with the OCA.
On October 19, 1998, the MTCC rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 10454 in favor of the complainant.
On December 17, 1998, the writ of execution issued.
On November 3, 1999, the complainant made a letter-complaint about delay and prompted the judge to require an explanation.
In the course of explanation, the respondent claimed a return shortly after February 4, 1999, but no return was found in the records.
On November 16, 2000, the complainant’s father followed up the status of execution.
On November 17, 2000, the respondent made a return.
On April 17, 2002, Judge Jose P. Nacional recommended investigation, stating that the respondent failed to comply with orders to explain and submit regular returns until completion of implementation.
On November 26, 2002, the Executive Judge reported continuing non-compliance and identified procedural defects in service and lack of required reporting.
On November 12, 2003, further evaluation noted the respondent had been dropped from the roll for AWOL since August 1, 2002, pursuant to the referenced service resolution.

Issues Presented

The Court determined whether the respondent sheriff committed gross neglect of duty in the execution and reporting of a final writ of execution.
The Court assessed whether the respondent’s alleged excuses—absence of leviable properties, workload, misplaced reports by clerical handling, and alleged service circumstances—negated the charge.
The Court considered whether the penalty of dismissal could still be imposed given that the respondent had already been dismissed from the service.
The Court evaluated whether the evidence showed that the judgment remained unsatisfied despite the respondent’s duties and opportunities to proceed under the Rules of Court.

Statutory Framework and Rules

The Court held that it is mandatory for a sheriff to execute a judgment and make a return on the writ of execution within the periods fixed by the Rules of Court.
The Court invoked Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which required that if the judgment cannot be satisfied within thirty (30) days after the sheriff’s receipt of the writ, the officer must report the reason therefor and make reports every thirty (30) days until satisfaction in full or expiration.
The Court relied on Rule 39, Section 9(b) as to proper procedure in service by levy/satisfaction by levy,