Alvarez, Jr. v. Martin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Vicente Alvarez, Jr. filed an unlawful detainer case against Danilo Ico, et al. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to vacate the premises and pay rentals and damages. The decision was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals. Danilo Ico's appeal to the Supreme Court was denied with finality. Procedural History: A Writ of Execution was issued by the MTC on November 5, 1999. Respondent Sheriff Jose R. Martin received the writ on February 3, 2000, and returned it unimplemented on March 7, 2000, citing Ico's refusal to vacate and his pending Petition for Review with the Supreme Court. The Sheriff's Return also noted Ico's claim of having five doors, with three leased and two not occupied by his machine shop. Complainant alleged the respondent sheriff was seen dining and wining with Ico during this period. The complainant filed motions to compel execution and to designate another sheriff, which were denied by the MTC. The writ was eventually forwarded to the RTC, and another sheriff, Rodolfo Tuliao, was assigned. Sheriff Tuliao reported on September 18, 2000, that Ico voluntarily surrendered two apartments. The Petition: Complainant filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Martin for failure or refusal to perform official duty. Respondent sheriff defended his actions by claiming the complainant failed to pay sheriff's fees and refused to accompany him during implementation. He denied the allegation of dining and wining with Ico. Complainant countered that he had authorized a representative to handle the matter and that a "PACKAGE DEAL" of P10,000.00 was negotiated for the implementation, without being informed that sheriff's fees were a prerequisite. Complainant also alleged conspiracy among court personnel.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent sheriff failed or refused to perform his official duty by returning the writ of execution unimplemented. Whether respondent sheriff violated Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court by demanding and receiving money from the complainant for the implementation of the writ. Whether respondent sheriff violated Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court for not submitting a monthly report.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Jose R. Martin, Sheriff IV, guilty of failure/refusal to perform official duty and suspended him for three (3) months without pay.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of failure or refusal to perform official duty: The Court held that respondent sheriff clearly refused to perform his duty to enforce the writ when he returned it to the Municipal Trial Court unimplemented. His Sheriff's Return indicated that the implementation was stalled due to the defendant's refusal to vacate and the presentation of a pending Petition for Review with the Supreme Court. However, under Section 10(c), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the sheriff is mandated to oust the defendant and, if resistance is met, is authorized to employ peace officers and use necessary means to take possession of the property. The Court noted that the respondent's claim of having ejected the defendant from two doors on March 7, 2000, was unsubstantiated and contradicted by his own Sheriff's Return; it was Sheriff Rodolfo Tuliao who later successfully implemented the writ. The Court emphasized that a sheriff's role in the execution of judgment is purely ministerial, meaning they have no discretion on whether to execute the judgment or not. The pendency of a petition for review with any court is not a valid excuse to defer implementation. The sheriff must proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute a judgment according to its mandate. On the issue of violation of Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court: The Court found that respondent sheriff's act of demanding and receiving P1,500.00 from the complainant for the lunch and merienda of accompanying policemen constituted a clear violation of Section 9, Rule 141. The Rules require the sheriff to estimate expenses, which the prevailing party deposits with the Clerk of Court for disbursement and liquidation. The money demanded and received by the respondent sheriff was not among those prescribed or authorized by the Rules of Court. The Court reiterated its ruling that any amount received by a sheriff in excess of lawful fees is an unlawful exaction, rendering the sheriff liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty. On the issue of violation of Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court: The Court agreed with the investigating judge's finding that the respondent violated Section 14, Rule 39 for not submitting a monthly report to the Municipal Trial Court regarding his implementation of the writ. This failure constitutes neglect of duty.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's role in the execution of judgment is purely ministerial and he has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. The pendency of a petition for review with any court is not sufficient excuse to defer implementation of the writ. Any amount received by the sheriff in excess of the lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court is an unlawful exaction and renders him liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.