Estoque v. Girado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This administrative case originated from a complaint filed by Mary Ann Estoque against Reynaldo O. Girado, a Sheriff IV at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Davao City. The complaint alleged dereliction of duty due to Girado's alleged unreasonable failure and refusal to implement a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 23-242-94, titled "Marcela A. Estoque et al. v. Apo View Hotel, et al." This underlying civil case concerned an amicable settlement reached by the parties on November 8, 1994, which the defendants allegedly failed to fully comply with, leading to the issuance of a writ of execution. Procedural History: Following the initial amicable settlement and subsequent failure of defendants to comply, a writ of execution was issued on April 7, 1999. When compliance was still not achieved, an alias writ of execution was issued on July 7, 2000, after a motion was granted on April 14, 2000. The complainant detailed a series of motions and orders from March 2000 through September 2004, wherein the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, repeatedly directed Sheriff Reynaldo O. Girado to implement the alias writ, submit a sheriff's return, show cause for his non-compliance, and explain why he should not be cited for contempt. The complainant also noted that the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff was directed to assign a substitute sheriff, but these directives were not effectively implemented. The Petition: The complainant, Mary Ann Estoque, filed a verified Letter-Complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on April 3, 2006, detailing Sheriff Girado's persistent failure to implement the alias writ of execution and to comply with multiple court orders. The respondent sheriff, in his comment, admitted to difficulties in locating one of the defendants, E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co. Ltd., and claimed this prevented full implementation. He apologized for his delays and failures to comply with court orders. The OCA recommended that the respondent be found guilty of neglect of duty and be fined P1,000.00 with a warning. The Supreme Court, however, found the respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty and imposed a fine equivalent to his salary for one month, with a stern warning against future repetitions.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Sheriff Reynaldo O. Girado is guilty of dereliction of duty for his failure to implement the alias writ of execution and to submit a sheriff's return. Whether respondent Sheriff Reynaldo O. Girado is guilty of simple neglect of duty for his repeated failure to comply with the lawful orders of the Regional Trial Court.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Sheriff Reynaldo O. Girado guilty of simple neglect of duty and imposed a fine equivalent to his salary for one month, with a stern warning against repetition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dereliction of duty and failure to implement the writ: The Court reiterated that a sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial. He is bound to execute the court order strictly to the letter and has no discretion to refuse execution unless restrained by the court. Once a writ is in his hands, he must proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness. The respondent's excuse that one of the defendants had ceased operations and could not be located does not absolve him from his duty. The rules do not grant him the prerogative to unilaterally decide not to implement the writ based on his belief that it would be a futile attempt. His failure to act despite the issuance of the alias writ of execution constitutes a breach of his ministerial duty. On the issue of failure to submit a sheriff's return and comply with court orders: The Court emphasized that a sheriff must know by heart his obligation to make a return of the writ of execution to the issuing court. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within 30 days, he must report to the court, state the reasons, and continue to report every 30 days thereafter. The submission of returns and periodic reports is crucial for updating the court on the status of execution and ensuring speedy satisfaction of judgments. Respondent's admitted failure to submit a sheriff's return, to make monthly reports, and to comply with multiple court orders directing him to do so, including orders to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt, demonstrates a clear disregard for his duties and the court's directives. His constant indifference to these orders belies his claim of having no intention to disobey.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial; failure to implement the writ, submit a sheriff's return, or make periodic reports constitutes simple neglect of duty.