Visitacion v. Ediza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 19, 1998, the Municipal Trial Court of Mabinay, Negros Oriental issued a writ of execution in Criminal Case No. 12732, directing defendant Cristobal Ejercito to restore possession of Lot No. 3098 to complainant Esmeraldo D. Visitacion and remove the building thereon. The writ was assigned to respondent Deputy Sheriff Gredam P. Ediza on June 10, 1998. Respondent requested P3,000.00 from the complainant to facilitate service, receiving a check for P2,400.00 and later P600.00 without receipts. Procedural History: Almost three months later, no report or return of service was received by the court. Complainant filed an administrative complaint for dereliction of duty on August 24, 1998. Respondent submitted a return of service dated August 10, 1998, stating service was made on June 29, 1998, with the defendant refusing to acknowledge receipt and being given 30 days to comply. As of August 10, 1998, the defendant still occupied the premises. The return was stamped received by the court on August 25, 1998. Respondent attributed the delay in filing to the distance between his office and the court. The Petition: The complainant alleged dereliction of duty due to the respondent's failure to implement the writ and the delay in filing the return of service.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Gredam P. Ediza is guilty of dereliction of duty. Whether respondent failed to observe proper procedure in handling the expenses for the service of the writ. Whether respondent filed a timely return of service.
Ruling
The Court finds respondent Gredam P. Ediza GUILTY of dereliction of duty and orders him to pay a FINE in the amount of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00).
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Gredam P. Ediza is guilty of dereliction of duty: The Court found respondent guilty of dereliction of duty. Despite the complainant funding the proceedings, the respondent plainly failed to perform his job. He unilaterally dispensed with proper procedure by directly requesting expenses from the complainant instead of seeking court approval. Furthermore, he failed to file a liquidation report for the amount received and did not file a timely return of service. His actions demonstrated a lack of professionalism and regard for the law, diminishing the people's faith in the judiciary. On whether respondent failed to observe proper procedure in handling the expenses for the service of the writ: Respondent failed to observe proper procedure by directly requesting the amount of estimated expenses from the complainant, instead of first seeking approval from the court as mandated by Section 9, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court. Moreover, the amount received is subject to liquidation, and any unspent amount should be refunded, yet no liquidation report was filed by the respondent. This deviation from the prescribed procedure highlights his negligence. On whether respondent filed a timely return of service: Respondent failed to file a timely return of service. Under Section 14, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, an officer should report to the court within 30 days if the judgment cannot be satisfied in full, and make periodic reports every 30 days thereafter. Respondent filed his return on the 60th day, which is contrary to the revised rule. Even if the old rules allowed up to 60 days, he cannot claim ignorance of the revision, as ignorance of the law excuses no one, especially those tasked with its implementation. The explanation for the delay in the court receiving the return due to distance was also found unpersuasive, as the travel time between the locations is minimal, indicating negligence and irresponsibility.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff found guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to properly implement a writ of execution, neglecting to follow prescribed procedures for handling expenses, and failing to file a timely return of service, is subject to disciplinary action, including a fine.