Malasarte v. Yebes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Leonarda Vda. de Malasarte filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Librado Yebes for failing to execute a writ of execution in her favor and for demanding P200.00 from her as reimbursement for supposed expenses incurred in serving the writ. The underlying case was Civil Case No. 2627 for Forcible Entry, where the heirs of Juanito Malasarte obtained a favorable decision that was affirmed up to the Court of Appeals and subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court on a procedural technicality. A writ of execution was issued on March 4, 1976, directing the sheriff to place the plaintiffs' heirs in possession of a parcel of land. Procedural History: The Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, Branch III, Dipolog City, required Deputy Sheriff Librado Yebes to explain why he had not served the writ or made a return, and why he demanded P200.00 from the complainant. Respondent Yebes replied, detailing the difficulties in serving the writ, including travel to remote areas and hiring a pump boat, and stated that the P200.00 was to reimburse his expenses, for which he submitted an accounting. He also claimed defendants had no properties subject to execution. The case was later referred to another Executive Judge for investigation. During the investigation, the complainant expressed no further interest, but the judge proceeded. The investigating judge found that the complainant was placed in possession, that the P629.00 could not be secured due to lack of defendant's properties, that the respondent's explanation for failing to make a return was unsatisfactory, and that the P200.00 expenditure was unjustified. The Petition: This matter originated from an administrative complaint filed by Leonarda Vda. de Malasarte against Deputy Sheriff Librado Z. Yebes. The complaint alleged two main offenses: (1) failure to execute a writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 2627 in favor of the complainant, and (2) demanding and receiving P200.00 from the complainant as reimbursement for expenses allegedly incurred in serving the writ. The core of the complaint was the alleged dereliction of duty by the respondent sheriff and the impropriety of his financial dealings with the prevailing litigant.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Librado Yebes failed to execute the writ of execution and make a timely return thereof. Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Librado Yebes committed misconduct by demanding and receiving P200.00 from the complainant to reimburse his expenses in serving the writ of execution.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Deputy Sheriff Librado Yebes guilty of failing to make a return of the Writ of Execution within the maximum period of sixty (60) days and for demanding the amount of Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) from the prevailing party to cover his expenses incident to serving and executing the writ of execution. Consequently, respondent Librado Yebes was suspended for a period of one (1) month without pay.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that respondent Deputy Sheriff Librado Yebes failed to make a return of the Writ of Execution within the maximum period of sixty (60) days prescribed by Section 11, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. While the respondent claimed difficulties in serving the writ, including travel to remote areas and the need to hire a pump boat, his explanation for the delay in filing the return was deemed unsatisfactory. The Court emphasized that the timely return of a writ is a crucial procedural step that ensures accountability and the proper administration of justice. The respondent's attempt to justify the delay by stating he was trying to help the complainant locate other properties of the defendants and that he kept the writ in his possession was not accepted as a valid excuse for the failure to comply with the mandatory period for making a return. On Issue 2: The Court held that respondent Deputy Sheriff Librado Yebes committed misconduct by demanding and receiving the amount of Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) from the prevailing party, complainant Leonarda Vda. de Malasarte, to cover his expenses incident to serving and executing the writ of execution. The Court found that the expenditure of P200.00 by the respondent was not justified, and the expenses incurred in serving the writ were unnecessary. This act is a violation of existing regulations on the matter, as sheriffs are expected to perform their duties without demanding personal reimbursement from the litigants for expenses that are either part of their official functions or not properly substantiated. The Court noted that this was the second time the respondent had committed a similar offense despite an earlier warning, warranting a heavier penalty.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed that Deputy Sheriffs are strictly prohibited from demanding and receiving sums of money from prevailing parties to cover expenses incident to serving and executing writs of execution. These expenses are considered part of their official duties, and any reimbursement must strictly adhere to established regulations. Failure to make a timely return of the writ of execution within the maximum period of sixty (60) days prescribed by law constitutes a violation of existing regulations and warrants disciplinary action.