Dacdac v. Ramos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Mila L. Dacdac filed an administrative case against Victor C. Ramos, Sheriff IV, for dereliction of duty. The case stemmed from respondent's alleged refusal to implement a trial court's order to issue a certificate of sale in an action for support filed by Vivien Kristel Dacdac Alvarado against Mario A. Alvarado. The RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and a writ of execution was issued. A public auction was held, and the property was sold to the plaintiff. Procedural History: The trial court ordered the respondent to execute a certificate of sale. Respondent withheld issuance pending payment of legal fees, but the court ruled that an action for support was not within the scope of the rule and ordered the respondent to execute the certificate. Respondent refused. In his explanation, respondent claimed he was awaiting the resolution of a manifestation filed by the defendant's counsel to hold the execution in abeyance. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) opined that respondent was remiss in his duties and recommended a fine. The Court re-docketed the case and required parties to manifest willingness to submit for decision. Respondent later informed the Court that he had issued the certificate of sale. The Petition: The complainant charged the respondent with dereliction of duty for refusing to implement the trial court's order to issue a certificate of sale.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Sheriff Victor C. Ramos is guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to issue the certificate of sale. Whether respondent Sheriff's refusal to issue the certificate of sale pending resolution of motions filed by the defendant's counsel constitutes a valid defense against administrative liability.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Victor C. Ramos guilty of simple neglect of duty and imposed a fine of P5,000, with a stern warning against repetition.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Sheriff Victor C. Ramos is guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to issue the certificate of sale: The Court held that respondent was guilty of dereliction of duty. The Court emphasized that those tasked with implementing court orders must ensure prompt execution of judgments. A sheriff's responsibility in executing a writ is mandatory and ministerial. Unless restrained by the court, the sheriff must proceed with reasonable speed to enforce the writ to the letter. The delay in issuing the certificate of sale, which was only done almost four years after the execution sale, caused material prejudice to the plaintiff, preventing consolidation of ownership and possession of the property. This delay unnecessarily delayed the realization of the support awarded to the minor child. On Whether respondent Sheriff's refusal to issue the certificate of sale pending resolution of motions filed by the defendant's counsel constitutes a valid defense against administrative liability: The Court ruled that awaiting resolution on a pending incident before the trial court is not a valid defense that relieves the respondent from administrative liability. What is crucial is the evident lack of any court order proscribing the issuance of a certificate of sale. The sheriff is chargeable with the knowledge that, as an officer of the court, it behooves him to comply with court orders in due time. His good faith or lack thereof is immaterial when there is a clear absence of a court order restraining the execution of the writ. The deliberate omission evinced that he was remiss in performing his duty to diligently and expeditiously implement the writ of execution.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's responsibility in the execution of a writ is mandatory and purely ministerial; failure to execute a writ without a restraining order from the court constitutes dereliction of duty or simple neglect of duty.