It is clear that despite the trial court's numerous directives to the respondent sheriff to implement the writ, the same remained unimplemented for more than four (4) years. - A.M. No. P-13-3163

See - A.M. No. P-13-3163

A.M. No. P-13-3163               

December 1, 2014
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3861-P]

MARCIDITO A. MIRANDA, Complainant,
vs. ERNESTO G. RAYMUNDO, JR., Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 74, Taguig City, Respondent.

"x x x.

We agree with the conclusion of the OCA that respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty for his failure to enforce the writ of execution issued by the trial court.

Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice. They are tasked to execute final judgments of the courts. If not enforced, such decisions become empty victories of the prevailing parties. As agents of the law, sheriffs are called upon to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence because in serving the court’s writs and processes and implementing its orders, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice.14

Sheriffs ought to know that theyhave a sworn responsibility to serve writs of execution with utmost dispatch.1âwphi1 When writs are placed in their hands, it is their ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with their mandate. Unless restrained by a court order, they should see to it that the execution of judgments is not unduly delayed. Accordingly, they must comply with their mandated ministerial duty as speedily as possible. As agents of the law, high standards are expected of sheriffs.15

In the present case, the non-implementation of the writ of execution is undisputed. Records show that the trial court issued the writ of execution as early as December 7, 2007,16 directing the respondent sheriff to cause the execution of the trial court's decision.17 However, when respondent sheriff went to the subject premises to implement the writ, he failed to evict the occupantstherein. The trial court then issued an Alias Writ of Execution on February 4, 201118and a Break-Open Order on March 23, 2012. Nonetheless, respondent sheriff still failed to implement the trial court's decision.

It is clear that despite the trial court's numerous directives to the respondent sheriff to implement the writ, the same remained unimplemented for more than four (4) years. In his Comment submitted before the OCA, respondent sheriff failed to offer any credible explanation as to why he has not enforced the writ all these years. There is no evidence presented to show that he exerted earnest efforts to implement the writ.

For failing to satisfactorily implement the writ, respondent sheriff displayed conduct short of the stringent standards required of court employees. He is guilty of simple neglect of duty which is defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.19 It is classified as a less grave offense punishable by suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.20 However, the Court, in several cases,21 also imposed the penalty of fine instead of suspension as an alternative penalty to prevent any undue adverse effect on public service which would ensue if work were otherwise left unattended by reason of respondent's suspension.

As to the allegation that respondent sheriff received the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP10,000.00) in order to implement the writ of execution, there appears to be no substantial evidence to prove the same. In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the onus of establishing, by substantial evidence, the averments of his complaint. Mere suspicion without proof cannot be the basis of conviction.22 In the instant case, complainant failed to discharge that burden.

x x x."