Lapeña v. Pamarang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Orlando Lapeña, as attorney-in-fact for Fidencio Mara, filed an unlawful detainer case. A judgment was rendered in favor of Lapeña, ordering the defendant to vacate the premises and pay attorney's fees. A writ of execution was issued and delivered to respondent Sheriff Jovito Pamarang on August 2, 1995. Respondent made his return on October 5, 1995, stating the writ was "DULY SERVED but not satisfied." Procedural History: The complaint against the sheriff was for ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, and willful neglect of duty. The case was referred for investigation. The complainant repeatedly expressed a lack of interest in pursuing the complaint and sought its dismissal. Despite these requests and the complainant's and his counsel's absences from hearings, the Executive Judge proceeded with the investigation. The Petition: The complainant alleged that the sheriff failed to make a timely return of the writ of execution, which was received on August 2, 1995, and should have been returned within 60 days, i.e., by October 1, 1995. The return was filed on October 5, 1995, four days late.
Issue(s)
Whether the withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant warrants the dismissal of the administrative case against the sheriff. Whether the respondent sheriff is guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to file a timely return of the writ of execution.
Ruling
The Court finds respondent Sheriff IV Jovito Pamarang GUILTY of dereliction of duty and imposes a FINE of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a warning against repetition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the withdrawal of the complaint warrants dismissal: The Court held that the withdrawal of a complaint for lack of interest by a complainant does not necessarily warrant the dismissal of an administrative case. The Court emphasized that it cannot be bound by the unilateral decision of a complainant to desist from prosecuting a case involving the discipline of parties subject to its administrative supervision. The need to maintain public faith and confidence in government agencies requires that administrative proceedings should not depend on the whims and caprices of complainants, who are essentially witnesses. On the issue of dereliction of duty for failure to file a timely return: The Court found the respondent sheriff guilty of dereliction of duty. It was established that the writ of execution was received on August 2, 1995, and the sheriff had until October 1, 1995, to make his return. The return was filed on October 5, 1995, four days beyond the 60-day period prescribed by Rule 39, Section 11 of the Rules of Court. The Court noted that the sheriff's explanation regarding the defendant's claim of appeal or consultation with counsel did not justify the delay in filing the return. The sheriff had a duty to make a timely return regardless of the circumstances surrounding the execution, especially considering the requirements to stay execution in ejectment cases, which did not appear to have been met. The Court cited Barola v. Abogatal where a similar delay resulted in a fine equivalent to one month's salary, and concluded that a fine of P2,000.00 was proper in this case, considering the return was only four days late.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff is guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to make a timely return of a writ of execution within the period prescribed by the Rules of Court, even if the complainant withdraws the complaint.