Tolarba v. Conejero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Vedasto Tolarba charged Sheriff IV Angel C. Conejero with malfeasance and misfeasance. Tolarba was the plaintiff in a forcible entry case, Civil Case No. 1048-L, where judgment was rendered in his favor. While the case was on appeal, Tolarba obtained a Writ of Execution, which was served on one defendant on October 4, 1999. The respondent Clerk of Court submitted her Report of Service on January 25, 2000, and the respondent Sheriff failed to report on the non-satisfaction of the writ and the reasons therefor. Consequently, Tolarba missed the first cropping season of 2000, causing him damage. Procedural History: The charges against the Clerk of Court were dismissed. The complaint against Sheriff Conejero was re-docketed as a regular administrative matter. Both parties agreed to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings. The Petition: The complainant alleged malfeasance and misfeasance against the respondent Sheriff for failing to promptly report the non-satisfaction of the writ of execution and for the delay in its service on all defendants, which caused prejudice to the complainant.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Sheriff committed malfeasance and misfeasance in his handling of the writ of execution. Whether the respondent Sheriff's failure to promptly submit the returns of service and furnish copies to the parties warrants administrative sanctions.
Ruling
The respondent Sheriff IV Angel C. Conejero is hereby FINED in the amount of Two Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offenses shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of malfeasance and misfeasance in handling the writ of execution: The Court found that the respondent Sheriff's failure to promptly submit the returns of service to the court and furnish the parties copies thereof is deserving of reproof. Rule 39, Section 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly mandates that the writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after receipt of the writ, the officer must report to the court and state the reason. Furthermore, the officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. The returns or periodic reports must be filed with the court and copies thereof promptly furnished the parties. On the issue of failure to promptly submit returns of service and furnish copies to the parties: The respondent Sheriff admitted that he failed to act "seasonably and with dispatch in undertaking the return of service of the questioned writ within the reglementary period." This admission, coupled with the clear mandate of the rules, establishes his dereliction of duty. Sheriffs, as public officers, are repositories of public trust and are under obligation to perform their duties honestly, faithfully, and to the best of their ability, using reasonable skill and diligence, especially when the rights of individuals may be jeopardized by their neglect. The respondent's conduct fell short of these standards and was prejudicial to the service, as held in previous cases like Canlas v. Balasbas and V.C. Ponce Co., Inc. v. Eduarte, which emphasize the sheriff's primary responsibility for the speedy and efficient service of court processes and writs.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's failure to promptly submit returns of service and furnish parties copies thereof, as required by Rule 39, Section 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, constitutes a breach of duty deserving of reproof and administrative sanctions, as such conduct is prejudicial to the service and impedes the fair administration of justice.