Tolentino v. Borja
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Romulo Tolentino charged respondent Deputy Sheriff Rolando Borja with conduct unbecoming a public officer, malfeasance, gross misconduct, and dereliction of duty for failing to implement Writs of Execution in Civil Case No. P-703 and Civil Case No. S-329. Procedural History: The Executive Judge, to whom the case was referred for investigation, recommended the dismissal of the complaint after finding the respondent's comment satisfactory. The Petition: The complainant alleged that the respondent failed to implement the Writs of Execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Deputy Sheriff committed dereliction of duty by failing to make a timely return of the writs of execution. Whether the respondent Deputy Sheriff failed to file the Sheriff's Return within the period prescribed by law, specifically violating Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The respondent Deputy Sheriff Rolando Borja of Naga City is found guilty of dereliction of duty and is suspended from office for a period of one (1) month, without pay, effective from the date this resolution becomes final.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dereliction of duty: The records reveal that the respondent failed to make a return of the writs within the period provided by law. In Civil Case No. P-703, the Sheriff's Return was stamped "Received" on October 18, 1983, despite the writ being issued on July 11, 1983, meaning the return should have been made a month earlier. Similarly, in Civil Case No. S-329, the Sheriff's Return was stamped "Received" on October 19, 1983, although the writ was issued on July 30, 1983, and the return should have been filed on September 1, 1983. This failure constitutes dereliction of duty, as the respondent was remiss in the performance of his mandated duties as a sheriff. On the issue of failure to file the Sheriff's Return within the prescribed period: In both instances, the respondent filed his returns beyond the 60-day life-span of the writs of execution as prescribed by Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The duty to make a return within the statutory period is a crucial aspect of a sheriff's responsibility in the execution of judgments. The timely filing of the return ensures accountability and allows the court to monitor the progress of the execution proceedings. By exceeding the prescribed period, the respondent sheriff failed to uphold the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process. Therefore, the Court found the respondent guilty of dereliction of duty.
Main Doctrine
A deputy sheriff is guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to make a return of a writ of execution within the period prescribed by law.