Reyes v. Cabusao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Ramon Reyes filed an administrative complaint for dereliction of duty against Benjamin L. Cabusao, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 68. The complaint stemmed from the alleged failure to implement a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 67026, which affirmed a decision awarding moral and exemplary damages. The writ was issued on March 10, 2000. Despite several oral requests from the plaintiff and a subsequent motion to compel enforcement, the writ remained unexecuted. The plaintiff's counsel discovered that no report explaining the failure to serve the writ was filed by the Sheriff, violating Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12. The Sheriff also failed to update the plaintiff or his counsel on the status of the case. Procedural History: The respondent Sheriff denied the charges, asserting that he made several attempts to locate the judgment debtor, Cesar Patindol, but the debtor had abandoned his known address. He claimed to have informed Patindol's wife and even attempted to facilitate a settlement. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a fine of ₱5,000.00 for delay in implementation and failure to submit a return of the writ. The Executive Judge, after investigation, echoed the OCA's findings and recommended the same fine. The Supreme Court, in its Decision, found the respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed by Ramon Reyes against Sheriff Benjamin L. Cabusao for dereliction of duty concerning the implementation of a writ of execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Sheriff is guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to implement the writ of execution and for failing to file a return of the writ, constituting simple neglect of duty. Whether the respondent Sheriff's delay in implementing the writ of execution and failure to submit a report constitutes a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference, especially considering his prior administrative charge.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent Sheriff guilty of simple neglect of duty and imposed a penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day. He was also sternly warned that any repetition of the same act would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dereliction of duty and simple neglect of duty: The Court held that by the very nature of his duties, a sheriff performs a sensitive function in the dispensation of justice and is duty-bound to know the basic rules relative to the implementation of writs of execution, showing a high degree of professionalism. The Court emphasized that the best evidence to prove that a sheriff was not remiss in his duties was the return of the writ. It is mandatory for a sheriff to make a return of the writ of execution to the clerk or judge issuing it. 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(s) therefor. Furthermore, the officer is tasked to 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. In this case, the writ was issued on March 10, 2000, and the respondent admitted that his first attempt to implement it was made more than 17 months later, on August 27, 2001. This delay could not be countenanced, as the execution of a judgment is considered the fruit and end of a suit. The Court found that the respondent Sheriff displayed conduct short of the stringent standards required of court employees, constituting simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. On the issue of the respondent Sheriff's prior administrative charge: The Court also noted that this was not the first time the respondent had been administratively charged, having been previously fined for failing to exercise reasonable diligence in the implementation of a writ of execution.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff is duty-bound to know the basic rules relative to the implementation of writs of execution and should, at all times, show a high degree of professionalism. Failure to make a timely report of the writ of execution, especially when the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days, constitutes simple neglect of duty.