Jumio v. Egay-Eviota
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Gedeon M. Jumio filed a complaint against Atty. Marietta Egay-Eviota, Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Provincial Sheriff, and Samuel G. Basco, Deputy Sheriff, for their alleged failure to fully execute original and alias writs of execution in NLRC Case No. SUB-RABX-10-07-00438-89. The original writ directed the collection of P65,971.34 and the reinstatement of the complainant. Respondent Eviota received the writ and delegated its implementation to respondent Basco. Basco attempted collection by sending notices of garnishment to banks, but the shipping company had no accounts, except one with a prior lien. Basco proposed to levy a motor launch but required a P1,200.00 deposit, which the complainant could not fully provide. Basco returned the writ unsatisfied. Respondent Eviota claimed she delegated the task due to her gender and other duties, and advised the complainant to secure an alias writ. Respondent Basco claimed the complainant refused to deposit sheriff's expenses and expenses for the levy, leading to the writ's expiration. An alias writ was later issued and assigned to another deputy sheriff. Procedural History: Executive Judge Carlo H. Lozada investigated the case and found that the writ was not served at the respondents' address, and garnishment notices were sent before alleged service. He also noted that the writ's main relief, reinstatement, was not pursued. The Executive Judge opined that it was doubtful if the writ was served on respondent Tiu, and that respondents should have advised the complainant to transmit the writ to the branch court in Dapa, Surigao del Norte. The Petition: The complainant filed a sworn complaint against the respondents for their failure to fully execute the writs of execution.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents Atty. Marietta Egay-Eviota and Samuel G. Basco failed to fully execute the original and alias writs of execution, specifically regarding the reinstatement of the complainant. Whether respondent Basco properly attempted to enforce the writ of execution, focusing solely on monetary collection and neglecting the reinstatement of the complainant. Whether respondent Eviota exercised proper supervision over the implementation of the writ, despite not having direct personal participation.
Ruling
The Court resolved to impose a FINE of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) on Deputy Sheriff Samuel G. Basco for failing to duly serve on and enforce the writ of execution, with a WARNING. Respondent Clerk of Court Marietta Egay-Eviota, as Ex Officio Provincial Sheriff, was ADMONISHED to exercise closer supervision over matters delegated to subordinate employees, with the same warning.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to fully execute the writ: The Court found that Deputy Sheriff Samuel G. Basco failed to duly serve on and enforce the writ of execution. While Basco attempted to collect the monetary award, he completely ignored the main relief under the writ, which was the reinstatement of the complainant to his former position. This failure was partly attributed to the complainant's refusal to deposit the required sheriff's fees and expenses for the levy on the motor launch. However, the Court also noted that the writ was not served at the respondents' address, and garnishment notices were sent even before the alleged service on respondent Tiu. The Court concluded that Basco failed to effect the reinstatement because there had been no valid service of the writ on the respondent company. On respondent Basco's actions: Deputy Sheriff Basco focused his attention solely on the collection of the judgment account and completely ignored the matter of the complainant's reinstatement. This was in stark contrast to the efforts of another deputy sheriff who assiduously worked for the full implementation of the writ. The Court found it doubtful whether the writ was actually served on respondent Tiu, as there was no showing of service at their address and garnishment notices were sent prior to the alleged service. Furthermore, the Court noted that Dapa, Surigao del Norte, where the respondents were located, had its own branch of the regional trial court, and the respondents should have advised the complainant to transmit the writ to that branch clerk of court. On respondent Eviota's supervision: While respondent Clerk of Court Eviota had no direct personal participation in the implementation of the writ, she was under a duty to exercise diligence and act with dispatch. The Court emphasized that clerks of court are required to properly supervise the persons to whom they delegate tasks. It was no excuse that she was a woman or pressed with other duties. The Court admonished her to exercise closer supervision over matters delegated to subordinate employees, recognizing that the officers charged with the enforcement of judgments must act with considerable dispatch so as not to unduly delay the administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
Clerks of court, as ex officio provincial sheriffs, are required to exercise diligence in the issuance of writs and to act with dispatch in their disposition. They must properly supervise subordinate employees to whom tasks are delegated. Deputy sheriffs are primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all court processes and writs, and must proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with their mandates.