Astorga and Repol Law Offices v. Roxas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Astorga and Repol Law Offices, represented by Atty. Arnold B. Lugares, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Leodel N. Roxas, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, Makati City. The complaint stemmed from the alleged willful neglect of duty concerning the execution of a Decision in Civil Case No. 01-1002, FGU Insurance Corporation v. NEC Cargo Services, Inc. and Albert T. Tamayo. The RTC had rendered a Decision in favor of FGU, ordering NEC Cargo Services, Inc. to pay FGU substantial damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The Decision became final and executory on September 24, 2004. A Writ of Execution was issued on July 10, 2006. On July 11, 2006, respondent sheriff levied upon the personal properties of NEC. However, Narciso E. Catalon filed a Third-Party Claim asserting ownership over the levied properties. As FGU failed to post an indemnity bond, the auction sale scheduled for July 19, 2006, was not proceeded with, and the levied properties were released to Catalon. The Sheriff's Report dated August 7, 2006, declared the levy lifted and the writ returned unsatisfied. Procedural History: The complainant alleged that in October 2007, they furnished the respondent with NEC's Articles of Incorporation, requesting a levy/garnishment on unpaid subscriptions. The respondent allegedly refused to execute the Decision without valid reason. Despite repeated follow-ups and even a reminder from the Branch Clerk of Court, no action was taken by the respondent. The complainant asserted that the respondent thwarted the Decision, undermining faith in the judicial process, and that the Decision remained unexecuted. The Petition: The complainant filed the instant Complaint-Affidavit dated April 29, 2008, praying for the respondent's penalization and removal from service for willfully refusing to comply with his sworn duty to execute the Decision. In his Comment, the respondent denied the allegations, stating that the levy was lifted due to the third-party claim and FGU's failure to post an indemnity bond. He asserted that he filed a Sheriff's Report dated August 7, 2006, and furnished a copy to the complainant. Regarding the unpaid subscriptions, the respondent suggested that Atty. Lugares notify the Court, opining that unpaid subscriptions are not leviable assets without a court determination that they are delinquent. He cited Banquerigo v. C.A. for the principle that a writ of execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the decision. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the respondent be found guilty of simple neglect of duty and suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff committed willful neglect of duty by failing to execute the RTC Decision and file periodic reports. Whether the respondent sheriff's failure to proceed with the execution due to a third-party claim and lack of indemnity bond, and his subsequent inaction regarding alleged leviable assets like unpaid subscriptions, constitute simple neglect of duty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent sheriff guilty of simple neglect of duty and suspended him for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay. The Court sternly warned him that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of willful neglect of duty and failure to file periodic reports: The Court affirmed the findings of the OCA, holding that the respondent sheriff was guilty of simple neglect of duty. Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court mandates that a sheriff must file a return of the writ of execution immediately after the judgment has been satisfied, or report to the court within thirty (30) days if it cannot be satisfied in full, stating the reason. Crucially, the officer must make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken until the judgment is satisfied or the writ's effectivity expires, furnishing copies to the parties. The respondent sheriff filed only one report on August 7, 2006, after receiving the writ on July 10, 2006. This report indicated that the levy was lifted due to a third-party claim and the failure to post an indemnity bond, and the writ was returned unsatisfied. For almost two years thereafter, until the administrative complaint was filed, the respondent failed to submit any periodic reports. This failure meant that FGU, the prevailing party, remained unaware of any steps taken to satisfy the judgment. The Court emphasized that difficulties in execution do not excuse a sheriff's total inaction and the mandatory requirement of periodic reports. The absence of these reports prevented the RTC and FGU from addressing any predicament or taking necessary actions. On the respondent's defense regarding leviable assets and unpaid subscriptions: The Court found the respondent's reasoning unacceptable. While acknowledging the principle that a writ of execution must conform to the dispositive portion of the decision, the Court pointed out that the respondent's failure to file periodic reports meant he could not bring his perceived predicament to the attention of the RTC and FGU. The Court reiterated that execution is the fruit and end of a suit, and a judgment left unexecuted is an empty victory. Sheriffs have a sworn responsibility to serve writs of execution with utmost dispatch and to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness. Their duty is ministerial, and they should not unduly delay the execution of judgments unless restrained by a court order. The Court stressed that high standards are expected of sheriffs as agents of the law, and their performance must be prompt and diligent, as enshrined in the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. The respondent's conduct fell short of these stringent standards, and his long delay in execution and failure to submit required reports constituted simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure to give attention to a task expected, signifying disregard resulting from carelessness or indifference.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's failure to file periodic reports on the proceedings taken to enforce a writ of execution, despite the judgment remaining unsatisfied, constitutes simple neglect of duty, as such inaction prevents the prevailing party from being aware of the steps taken and deprives them of the fruits of the judgment.