Añonuevo v. Pempeña
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Maria Añonuevo (complainant) charged Rolando E. Pempeña (respondent), Sheriff IV of the Municipal Trial Court of Goa, Camarines Sur, with non-performance of official duty. Complainant was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 822, "Spouses Orencio Añonuevo and Maria Añonuevo vs. Bernardo Rodriguez, et al.," for forcible entry with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. A decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs on June 7, 1989, which was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, thus becoming final and executory. Procedural History: A writ of execution was issued on February 4, 1992, commanding the sheriff to require the defendants to vacate and restore possession, demolish a building, and pay damages, litigation expenses, attorney's fees, and costs. The writ was received by the respondent sheriff on February 13, 1992. Complainant alleged that she gave the respondent P500.00 for the implementation of the writ, but the respondent failed to fully execute the decision. The Petition: The complainant filed a sworn letter-complaint charging the respondent sheriff with non-performance of official duty. The respondent filed a comment, and the case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation. The respondent sheriff also filed a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, which the complainant opposed.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff was guilty of non-performance of official duty for failing to fully implement the writ of execution, and whether the respondent sheriff was justified in collecting only a portion of the monetary award from one defendant. Whether the respondent sheriff's actions regarding the demolition of structures were justified. Whether the respondent sheriff properly handled sheriff's fees.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent sheriff guilty of non-performance of official duty and ordered him to pay a fine equivalent to one (1) month's salary. The Court absolved the respondent on the aspect of demolition due to the lack of a special order from the court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of non-performance of official duty and partial collection of monetary award: The Court held that the respondent sheriff was guilty of non-performance of official duty for his unjustified failure to fully execute the writ of execution. The writ commanded the satisfaction of the monetary obligation, eviction, and demolition. The respondent's attempt to justify collecting only one-third of the obligation from one defendant was rejected because the obligation was solidary, meaning any of the defendants could be held liable for the entire amount. Furthermore, the respondent should have levied on all leviable properties of all defendants to satisfy the judgment, costs, and fees. The Court emphasized that a sheriff's duty to implement a writ of execution is purely ministerial and not discretionary. The sheriff must proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute the writ according to its mandate. On the issue of demolition: The Court found merit in the respondent's contention that the demolition of structures could not be executed without a special order from the court. Citing Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the Court reiterated that the demolition of improvements constructed by the judgment debtor requires a special order issued upon petition of the judgment creditor after due hearing and failure of the debtor to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court. Therefore, the respondent was absolved on this particular aspect. On the issue of sheriff's fees: The Court found respondent's non-issuance of an official receipt for the P400.00 collected as sheriff's expenses irregular. It noted that sheriff's fees form part of the Judiciary Development Fund, which is subject to examination and accounting. The Court also observed that the respondent deducted P200.00 from a P6,000.00 collection despite having already received P500.00 from the complainant as sheriff's fees. The Court condemned the practice of demanding fees in excess of those lawfully allowed, stressing that court personnel must be above suspicion and examples of integrity, uprightness, and honesty.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff is guilty of non-performance of official duty for unjustified failure to fully execute a writ of execution, particularly in collecting monetary awards and implementing eviction and demolition directives, as the sheriff's duty in implementing a writ is ministerial and not discretionary. However, demolition requires a special order from the court.