Mariñas v. Florendo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Emilia Mariñas filed a Complaint-Affidavit charging Terencio G. Florendo, Sheriff V, with neglect of duty relative to the implementation of a writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 5238-V. The decision in the civil case became final and executory, and a writ of execution was issued on May 19, 2003. Respondent sheriff was assigned to implement it and demanded ₱7,000.00 for expenses, which complainant paid. Despite repeated follow-ups, the writ remained unimplemented for approximately three years. Procedural History: The matter was referred to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Vigan City. The complainant failed to appear for a confrontation, explaining she was not notified. The respondent denied soliciting ₱7,000.00 but admitted receiving ₱1,000.00 offered by the complainant for expenses. He claimed he sought assistance for surveillance, and the writ was later endorsed to the RTC, Dagupan City, for further proceedings, arguing this transferred the enforcement task. He denied frequent follow-ups and stated the complainant only visited twice between 2004 and 2005. He also mentioned budgetary constraints and futile searches for the defendant's vehicle. The Petition: The complainant filed the administrative complaint for neglect of duty against the respondent sheriff.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent sheriff was guilty of neglect of duty in the implementation of the writ of execution. Whether respondent sheriff committed misconduct in office by accepting sheriff's expenses from the complainant without prior court approval.
Ruling
Respondent is found guilty of neglect of duty and misconduct in office. He is imposed a FINE equivalent to his one-month salary and is directed to immediately implement the subject writ. He is warned that commission of a similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of neglect of duty in implementing the writ of execution: The respondent sheriff was negligent in the performance of his duty. The Writ of Execution was issued on May 19, 2003, and remained unimplemented for over three years. Section 14 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court mandates that a sheriff must enforce the writ of execution without delay unless restrained. The rule further requires the sheriff to report to the court within thirty (30) days if the judgment cannot be satisfied in full, and to submit periodic reports every thirty (30) days thereafter until the judgment is satisfied. The records do not show that the respondent rendered these reports. His claim that the duty was transferred to the RTC, Dagupan City, upon endorsement of the writ does not absolve him, as the responsibility for implementation remains with the assigned sheriff, who can seek assistance from sheriffs in other jurisdictions but must retain oversight. Execution is the fruit and end of a suit, and a judgment left unexecuted is an empty victory. The respondent was remiss in his implementation and derelict in his submission of returns. On the issue of misconduct in office for accepting sheriff's expenses: The respondent grievously failed to comply with Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. This rule clearly states that for sheriff's expenses in executing a writ, the interested party shall pay an estimated amount approved by the court, deposited with the Clerk of Court, who then disburses it to the deputy sheriff, subject to liquidation. The respondent admitted receiving ₱1,000.00 from the complainant without estimating expenses, securing prior court approval, or issuing a receipt. This act of receiving money from a party without following the prescribed procedure is proscribed by the rule and constitutes misconduct in office. Sheriffs are not allowed to receive voluntary payments from parties during their duties, as it raises suspicion of less noble purposes. Even if the money was intended for expenses, the procedure under Rule 141 was ignored. The money was not deposited with the Clerk of Court, and there was no showing of court approval. The respondent should not have accepted money from a party, much less asked for it. His failure to comply with Rule 141 constitutes dereliction of duty and negligence, warranting disciplinary measures.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff is negligent and commits dereliction of duty for failing to implement a writ of execution without delay and for failing to submit periodic reports as required by the Rules of Court. Furthermore, a sheriff commits misconduct for accepting sheriff's expenses from a party without prior court approval and without issuing a receipt, even if the amount was offered voluntarily and allegedly used for implementation.