Smith Bell & Company v. Saur
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Augusto Breva, on behalf of Smith Bell & Co., Inc., filed a letter-complaint against respondent Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Cotabato for failing to render a return on a Writ of Execution issued by the City Court of Davao City in Civil Case No. 2303-C. The judgment in the civil case ordered the defendant to pay P1,120.00 plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs. A writ of execution was issued on February 18, 1974, and received by the respondent on July 26, 1974, along with P100.00 for sheriff's fees and incidental expenses. The writ was never returned to the issuing court within the 60-day period prescribed by law, and the judgment remained unsatisfied. Procedural History: An investigation was conducted pursuant to this Court's Resolution. The respondent alleged that the claim had been satisfied by a bank draft sent to Atty. Breva. Atty. Breva denied receiving the check and doubted its veracity, noting the bank had no branch in Davao City. Despite several tracer letters and due notice, the respondent failed to comment further or appear before the Investigating Judge. The Petition: The complainant charged the respondent with failure to render a return on the Writ of Execution.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Deputy Provincial Sheriff Mario P. Saur failed to make a return on the Writ of Execution as required by law. Whether respondent's actions, including his failure to levy and make a return, constituted malicious non-feasance in office.
Ruling
The Court found the respondent guilty of malicious non-feasance in office. However, due to his prior dismissal for serious misconduct and malfeasance in office in another administrative matter (Administrative Matter No. P-1337), a second dismissal would be moot and academic. The Court noted that the respondent failed to account for the P100.00 received for sheriff's fees, misrepresented that the claim was satisfied, and ignored tracer letters.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Deputy Provincial Sheriff Mario P. Saur failed to make a return on the Writ of Execution as required by law: The Court found no question that respondent failed to make any return on the Writ of Execution received by him on July 26, 1974, within the sixty-day period prescribed by Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. In fact, even as late as September 24, 1979, more than five years after receiving the writ, respondent had still failed to make any return at all. His bare assertion that he had sent a bank draft to Atty. Breva on September 12, 1974, was categorically denied by Atty. Breva, and respondent himself failed to substantiate this claim or appear at the investigation. This prolonged and unexplained failure constitutes a clear dereliction of duty, demonstrating a flagrant disregard for a fundamental procedural requirement. On whether respondent's actions, including his failure to levy and make a return, constituted malicious non-feasance in office: The Court held that respondent's failure to levy on the property of the judgment debtor to satisfy the judgment, coupled with his failure to make a return, constituted malicious non-feasance in office. This finding was supported by his unsubstantiated claim of satisfaction, his failure to account for the P100.00 received for sheriff's fees and incidental expenses, and his consistent refusal to respond to tracer letters or participate in the investigation. The Court emphasized that when a writ is placed in a sheriff's hands, it is his duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it in accordance with its mandates, having no discretion whether to execute it or not, as reaffirmed in Cole v. Parker. The obligation of obedience to court processes rests with binding force upon judicial officers like the respondent sheriff, as reiterated in Pacis vs. Averia.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's failure to render a return on a Writ of Execution within the prescribed period, coupled with misrepresentation and failure to account for fees, constitutes malicious non-feasance in office, warranting disciplinary action.