GEDEON M. JUMIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MARIETTA EGAY-EVIOTA, CLERK OF COURT AND EX OFFICIO PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, AND SAMUEL G. BASCO, DEPUTY SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SURIGA…

Complainant Gedeon M.
Jumio filed a sworn complaint against respondents Atty. Marietta Egay-Eviota,
Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Provincial
Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, and Samuel G. Basco, a
deputy sheriff of the same
court, for their alleged failure to
fully execute the original and alias writs of execution issued
in NLRC Case No. SUB-RABX-10-07-00438-89,
entitled “Gedeon M. Jumio
vs. Siargao Shipping Lines,
Inc., et al.”^[1]

It appears that in the aforesaid
labor case, the original writ of execution dated May 28, 1990 directed the
Provincial Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City to collect from
respondents “Siargao Shipping Lines, Inc. and/or Sabina Andit Tiu and/or
the Manager” of said corporation the amount of P65,971.34 representing the
judgment awarded in favor of herein complainant, who was also the complainant in said case. The writ further ordered the reinstatement
of herein complainant to his former position in therein respondent company.^[2]

Respondent Eviota
received the writ on June 11, 1990, and, on the same day, she delegated the
implementation thereof to her deputy, herein respondent Basco.^[3] On June 15, 1990, the latter attempted to
enforce collection of the judgment account by sending notices of garnishment to
all the nine banks doing business in Surigao City.^[4] It turned out, however, that respondent
shipping company did not maintain any account with any, one of them, except the
Philippine National Bank which had deposits in the former’s name but had a
prior lien over the same.^[5] Basco accordingly proposed to levy upon or
attach a motor launch belonging to respondent company and demanded from
complainant a deposit of P1,200.00^[6] pursuant to Section 7, Rule 141 of the Rules
of Court. The latter, however, was able
to produce only P200.00, hence, on August 16, 1991, Basco returned the writ
unsatisfied or unenforced.^[7]

On her part, respondent Eviota avers that she assigned the
implementation of the original writ to Basco, as being a woman, she does not
personally perform such function, aside from her being pressed with other
duties as clerk of court.^[8] She
further alleges that the original writ had already expired after its return by
Basco. This respondent had allegedly
advised complainant to secure an alias writ but the latter reportedly refused
to heed that advice.^[9] It
was only on April 28, 1993 that an alias writ was issued in the case and
another deputy sheriff, Juan Gonzaga, was assigned to enforce the same.^[10]

Respondent Basco, on the other hand, contends that he served the
writ on respondent Tiu on June 26, 1990, but the latter refused to receive
it. Nevertheless, he issued and served
notices of garnishment to all the banks in Surigao City, shouldering his own
transportation expenses. He
contends that the failure to satisfy the original writ was due to complainant’s
refusal to deposit the required sheriff’s expenses authorized by Section 7 of
Rule 141, and to defray the expenses for the levy on the motor launch owned by Tiu. Thus, the writ expired and was
returned to the court of origin duly served but unsatisfied.^[11] He
admits that an alias writ of execution was issued on April 28, 1993, but it was assigned to another sheriff.^[12]

Executive Judge Carlo H. Lozada, to whom the case was referred for investigation,
report and recommendation,^[13]
found, among others, that the address of therein respondent shipping
corporation and/or Sabina Andit Tiu and/or the Manager of the company is Dapa,
Surigao del Norte. Nevertheless,
nowhere in the comment of respondent Eviota or in the sheriff’s return of
respondent Basco was there any mention that the writ was served on respondents
at said address. Moreover, even before
the alleged service of the writ on Tiu was made, the notices of garnishment
were already sent to the nine banks aforementioned. The action taken by Basco was also limited only to attempted
collection of the monetary award of P65,971.34. There was no showing of any action or attempt on his part to
implement the main relief under the writ, that is, the reinstatement of
complainant to his former position in defendant company,^[14]
which would not have involved any expense.

From the foregoing, it is apparent that respondent clerk of court
had no direct or personal participation in the implementation of the original
writ of execution although respondent sheriff was under her supervision. Nonetheless, clerks of court are required to
exercise diligence in the issuance of writs and to act with dispatch in the
disposition thereof.^[15]

One of the most difficult phases of any proceeding is the
execution of judgment. Hence, the
officers charged with the delicate task
of the enforcement and/or implementation of the same must, in the absence of a restraining order, act with considerable dispatch so as not to unduly
delay the administration of justice; otherwise, the decision, orders or other
processes of the courts of justice would be futile. Stated differently, the judgment, if not executed, would be just
an empty victory on the part of the prevailing party.^[16]

It is of no moment that respondent clerk of court, as ex officio provincial sheriff, is a woman and that she is pressed with other duties. Granting arguendo that
she could not personally attend to the actual implementation of the writ, the least that she could have
done was to properly supervise the person to whom she had delegated the task
which had been directed to her for performance.

On the other hand, it cannot be gainsaid that respondent Basco
merely focused his attention on the collection of the judgment account and
completely ignored the matter of complainant’s reinstatement in the defendant
company. This is in stark contrast with
the efforts exerted by Deputy Sheriff Juan Gonzaga who assiduously worked for
the full and complete implementation of the writ.^[17]

As Executive Judge Lozada opined,^[18] it is doubtful whether the writ was
actually served on defendant Tiu, for the following reasons, viz.: first, there was no
showing, in the comments filed by respondents, that the writ was served at their address in Dapa, Surigao del Norte;
and, second, the notices of garnishment were sent to the banks even before the
writ was allegedly served on respondents.

It can, therefore, be safely concluded that respondent Basco
failed to effect the reinstatement of complainant in respondent company due to
the fact that there had been no valid service of the writ on the latter. Parenthetically, Judge Lozada also noted
that Dapa, Surigao del Norte has
its own branch of the regional trial court, with its own clerk of court and ex
officio sheriff. Accordingly, respondents should have advised complainant thereof
and transmitted the writ to said branch clerk of court.

Be that as it may, we
cannot completely fault respondent Basco for his failure to collect the
judgment account as the same was not solely attributable to him. It was also due to complainant’s failure to
defray the sheriff’s fees and the expenses for the levy on the motor launch,
hence the non-satisfaction of the monetary award.

When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty,
in the absence of instructions, to proceed with reasonable celerity and
promptness to execute it in accordance with its mandates.^[19]
The sheriff is primarily responsible
for the speedy and efficient service of all court processes and writs
originating from his court, the branches thereof, and those that may be
delegated to him by other courts.^[20]

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to impose a FINE
of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) on Deputy Sheriff Samuel G. Basco for failing
to duly serve on and enforce the writ of execution against the respondents in
NLRC Case No. SUB-RABX-10-07-00438-89, with a WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Respondent Clerk of Court Marietta
Egay-Eviota, as Ex Officio Provincial
Sheriff, is hereby ADMONISHED to exercise closer supervision over
matters delegated by her to subordinate employees, with the same warning in the
event of a repetition of similar acts of negligence.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, and Puno, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, 41-44.

^[2]
Ibid., 18.

^[3]
Ibid., 29.

^[4]
Ibid., 30.

^[5]
Ibid., 58.

^[6]
Ibid., 38.

^[7]
Ibid., 33.

^[8]
Ibid., 49.

^[9]
Ibid., 22.

^[10]
Ibid., 76.

^[11]
Ibid., 58.

^[12]
Ibid., 59.

^[13]
Ibid., 13.

^[14]
Ibid., 7-8.

^[15]
Circular No. 53, Department of Justice,
October 2, 1951.

^[16]
Maya vs. Bassig, A.M. No.
2796-P, August 7, 1985, 138 SCRA 49.

^[17]
Rollo, 54.

^[18]
Ibid., 85.

^[19]
47 Am. Jur. Sheriffs, Police and Constables 855.

^[20]
De Castro vs. Santos, A.M. No. P-90-474, June 19, 1991, 198 SCRA 245.