Gillego v. Roxas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rosita Andamo Gillego filed a sworn complaint against Atty. Henry Amado Roxas, Clerk of Court, and Jesus Garlan, Deputy Sheriff, for dereliction of duty in failing to enforce a Writ of Execution. The case stemmed from Civil Case No. 380 for "Ejectment/Demolition of Illegal Construction," where a Special Order of Demolition was issued directing the Deputy Sheriff to remove a portion of a residential house illegally constructed on the complainant's lot. Complainant paid P1,500.00 to the Clerk of Court for the implementation fees on April 15, 1991. Despite payment and hiring laborers, the Deputy Sheriff failed to appear for the demolition. Procedural History: The Supreme Court required the respondents to file their comments. The matter was referred to the Executive Judge for investigation. Hearings were repeatedly postponed. On May 7, 1993, the Investigating Judge warned parties that failure to present evidence on May 25, 1993, would be deemed termination of presentation of evidence. The parties failed to present evidence, and respondents also failed to submit their position papers. The Petition: The complainant alleged that the respondents failed to enforce a Writ of Execution and Demolition, despite payment of fees and subsequent directives from the court and the Office of the Court Administrator.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Jesus Garlan was guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to implement the Writ of Execution. Whether respondent Clerk of Court Henry Amado Roxas was guilty of neglect of duty for his role in the delay of the implementation of the Writ of Execution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found both respondents guilty, imposing penalties: Clerk of Court Henry Amado Roxas was reprimanded and warned, and Deputy Sheriff Jesus Garlan was suspended for six months and warned.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Deputy Sheriff Jesus Garlan's dereliction of duty: The Court found Deputy Sheriff Garlan guilty of dereliction of duty. His failure to implement the Writ of Execution persisted despite the issuance of a Special Order by the MTC, a directive from the Deputy Court Administrator, and an Alias Writ of Execution which he received on August 9, 1991. He attempted to justify his delay by citing the Clerk of Court's delay in remitting the P1,500.00 fee, which was paid on April 15, 1991, and remitted to him on June 8, 1992. However, the Court held that Garlan could not easily avoid responsibility, as he had failed for three years to execute the Writ, disregarding multiple orders. Under Rule 141, Section 9 of the Rules of Court, he was obliged to secure the court's approval for estimated expenses. Furthermore, the Writ and Alias Writ of Execution explicitly stated that the expenses and fees were to be collected from the plaintiff and chargeable against the defendants. Garlan knew the fees were deposited by April 15, 1991, yet he passively waited for remittance and did not implement the Writ even after receiving the funds. His duty to make a return of the Writ within 10 to 60 days from receipt, as mandated by Rule 39, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, was also not fulfilled. The Court rejected his contention that he tried to convince the occupants to vacate voluntarily, stating that his duty was to carry out the Writ, not to wait for persuasion for three years. On the issue of Clerk of Court Henry Amado Roxas's neglect of duty: The Court found Clerk of Court Roxas guilty of neglect of duty. While he claimed to have reminded the Deputy Sheriff, the Court considered him remiss in his duty to promptly remit the sum representing the estimated expenses of demolition to the Deputy Sheriff. Roxas offered no sensible reason for holding onto the deposit for an inordinately long period before transmitting it. By the time he actually remitted the amount on June 8, 1992, the Alias Writ of Execution had become stale. The Court disagreed with the Investigating Judge's recommendation to dismiss the charge against the Clerk of Court, finding his delay in remitting the funds to be a clear neglect of his responsibilities.
Main Doctrine
Both the Clerk of Court and the Deputy Sheriff were found guilty of neglect and dereliction of duty, respectively, for their failure to promptly implement a Writ of Execution and Demolition, despite repeated directives and the lapse of a significant period, highlighting the mandatory nature of executing and returning writs within prescribed periods.