Development Bank of the Philippines v. Famero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) filed a complaint against Damvin V. Famero, Sheriff IV, for Gross Neglect of Duty amounting to Gross Misconduct. The complaint arose from the respondent's alleged failure or refusal to implement a Writ of Execution issued in a forcible entry case involving a 5,776 square meter parcel of land owned by DBP. The RTC had ordered the occupants to vacate the property in a decision dated August 24, 2004, and the writ of execution was issued on July 13, 2005. Procedural History: The respondent claimed he immediately went to the property to enforce the writ upon receipt and faced resistance from occupants, some of whom were relatives of insurgents, and even received death threats. He also noted that the occupants had filed a case for Declaratory Reliefs, Declaration of Nullity of Titles and Documents and/or Reversion with Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order. He suggested that DBP secure a writ of demolition, as he believed he could not demolish improvements without a special court order. The DBP reiterated its allegations in a Reply-Affidavit. The case was referred to the Executive Judge for investigation, who found that the respondent had attempted to implement the writ multiple times but failed to evict the occupants. The Executive Judge noted the respondent's difficulty in enforcing the writ of execution and his suggestion to obtain a writ of demolition. The Executive Judge also highlighted the respondent's failure to submit periodic reports as required by Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, noting a significant delay in filing the Sheriff's Return of Service. The Petition: The DBP sought the dismissal of the respondent for Gross Neglect of Duty and Gross Misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff was guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty amounting to Gross Misconduct for his failure to implement the Writ of Execution. Whether the respondent sheriff complied with the procedural requirements for the return of a writ of execution and periodic reporting.
Ruling
The Court found the respondent guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty, not Gross Neglect of Duty or Gross Misconduct. The Court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (₱2,000.00) with a warning against repetition of the offense.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Gross Neglect of Duty and failure to implement the Writ of Execution: The Court acknowledged that the respondent sheriff attempted to implement the writ on several occasions, but faced resistance from the occupants who had built permanent structures. The Court agreed with the respondent that he could not demolish these improvements without a special order from the court, as provided under Section 10(d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. This provision explicitly states that improvements on the property subject of execution shall not be destroyed, demolished, or removed except upon a special order of the court. Therefore, the respondent's inability to fully implement the writ by evicting the occupants was partly due to the nature of the property and the improvements thereon, which required a separate writ of demolition. The Court also considered the respondent's fear for his life due to threats from individuals associated with insurgents, which is a valid concern for a sheriff tasked with such duties. The respondent's long service and unblemished record prior to this incident were also taken into account. On the issue of compliance with procedural requirements for return of service and periodic reporting: The Court found that the respondent clearly failed to comply with Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that a sheriff must make a return of the writ of execution immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days, the officer must report to the court the reason therefor and continue to make a report every thirty (30) days until the judgment is satisfied or the writ's effectivity expires. The respondent filed his Sheriff's Return of Service two years after the writ was issued and did not submit periodic reports as required. This failure to make periodic reports constitutes inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties and is conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. However, the Court classified this lapse as Simple Neglect of Duty, not Gross Neglect of Duty or Gross Misconduct, considering the mitigating circumstances present.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's failure to submit a return of service and periodic reports as mandated by Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court constitutes simple neglect of duty, which is conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. However, mitigating circumstances such as length of service, absence of prior infractions, and legitimate difficulties encountered in executing the writ may warrant the imposition of a fine instead of suspension.