Bautista v. Orque
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Brimel Bautista filed an administrative complaint against respondent Abelardo B. Orque, Jr., Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Tabaco City. The complaint alleged neglect of duty and/or incompetence for refusing to enforce several writs issued by the MTCC in separate ejectment cases filed by the complainant. These writs included a Writ of Execution dated November 17, 2004, and a Writ of Demolition dated January 20, 2005, in Civil Case No. 68, and Writs of Execution dated January 18, 2005, in Civil Cases No. 64, 66, and 67. The complainant asserted that the respondent's inaction allowed defendants to file motions for reconsideration, causing further delays. Specifically, in Civil Case No. 68, the respondent cited an error in the identification of Lot No. 270 as the reason for not enforcing the Writ of Demolition, claiming it was not owned by the complainant but occupied by a bodega of Teja Hardware. The complainant countered that the MTCC had already ruled that the error in lot number identification was corrected when the defendants admitted in their Answer that the property was the Satellite Market, and that parties had agreed on the property's identity during the preliminary conference. Procedural History: The respondent, in his Comment, denied the charges. He claimed to have served the Writ of Execution in Civil Case No. 68 and submitted a return indicating partial satisfaction. He also stated he served a Notice to Vacate after the Writ of Demolition was granted. However, he discovered Lot No. 270 was owned by others and not the complainant's property (Lot No. 272), which led him to believe demolition would be unlawful. Regarding Civil Cases No. 64, 66, and 67, the respondent filed a Manifestation requesting to be relieved of implementing the writs, and the court subsequently designated the RTC Sheriff to implement them. The respondent maintained that the MTCC's January 18, 2005 Order did not rectify the substantial error in the lot number identification, which he believed could not be corrected after the decision became final. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed by Brimel Bautista against Clerk of Court Abelardo B. Orque, Jr. for alleged neglect of duty and/or incompetence in failing to enforce several writs of execution and demolition.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff committed dereliction of duty by refusing to enforce the writs of execution and demolition, and whether the alleged error in the identification of the property subject of the writ of demolition was a valid ground to refuse its implementation. Whether the respondent failed to submit the Sheriff's Report in Civil Case No. 68 within the mandated period. Whether the respondent sufficiently justified his inaction regarding the writs of execution in Civil Cases No. 64, 66, and 67, and whether mitigating factors warrant a tempered penalty.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Abelardo B. Orque, Jr. GUILTY of dereliction of duty. He was FINED in the amount of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00), with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. The respondent was exculpated from wrongdoing with respect to the writs of execution in Civil Cases No. 64, 66, and 67.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dereliction of duty and the validity of the property identification error: The Court held that the respondent Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff was guilty of dereliction of duty. The duty of a sheriff in enforcing writs of execution is ministerial and not discretionary. The respondent's refusal to implement the Writ of Demolition in Civil Case No. 68, citing an error in the property identification (Lot No. 270), was deemed unacceptable. This supposed mistake had already been raised by the defendants and ruled against them by the court, which clarified that the error was corrected when the defendants admitted the property was the Satellite Market. The court's Order of January 18, 2005, explicitly stated that the lot number was immaterial as the parties had agreed on the property's identity. The respondent's insistence on the error, even after the court's denial of the defendants' motion for reconsideration, validated his reluctance to perform his ministerial duty. The Court found his defense of prudence and caution ludicrous, as he failed to follow the procedure outlined in Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court for third-party claims. On the failure to submit the Sheriff's Report: The Court noted that the respondent failed to submit his Sheriff's Report in Civil Case No. 68 within the 30-day reglementary period mandated by Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The report was submitted on February 22, 2005, four days after its due date of February 18, 2005. This failure further reflected his neglect of duty, as officers charged with implementing judgments must act with considerable dispatch to avoid unduly delaying justice. On the writs in Civil Cases No. 64, 66, and 67 and mitigating factors: The Court exculpated the respondent from wrongdoing concerning the writs of execution in Civil Cases No. 64, 66, and 67. The Court found that these writs were addressed to the Sheriff or deputies of the RTC, Tabaco City, and not specifically to the respondent. Furthermore, the respondent was eventually relieved of his duties concerning these writs by a court Order dated April 19, 2005. Therefore, the complaint failed to substantiate the charge of remissness in these specific cases. The Court considered certain factors that warranted a tempered penalty. These included the existence of an error in the lot number in Civil Case No. 68, although it was deemed admitted by the parties and not objected to by the complainant. Additionally, the delay in implementing the writ in Civil Case No. 68 was not excessively protracted, and the respondent had served the judiciary for thirty years since 1975. These factors, while not excusing the dereliction, influenced the imposition of a fine rather than a more severe penalty.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's duty to enforce writs of execution is ministerial and not discretionary. Refusal to implement a writ based on perceived errors, especially when such errors have been passed upon and rectified by the court, constitutes dereliction of duty. Failure to observe procedural rules, such as filing a sheriff's report within the reglementary period, further supports a finding of neglect.