ROSITA ANDAMO VDA. DE GILLEGO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. HENRY AMADO ROXAS, CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 55, SORSOGON, SORSOGON; AND JESUS GARLAN, SHERIFF IV, REGION…

Rosita Andamo Gillego filed a sworn complaint dated 29 August
1991 against (a) Henry Amado Roxas, Clerk of Court, Branch 55, Regional Trial
Court, Sorsogon, Sorsogon; and (b) Jesus Garlan, Deputy Sheriff of the same
court, for dereliction of duty consisting of their failure to enforce a Writ of
Execution.

The Supreme Court required the two (2) respondents to file their
comments on the complaint. After their
Comments had been filed, the Court, in a Resolution dated 28 September 1992,
referred the matter to the Hon. Eudarlio B. Valencia, Executive Judge, Regional
Trial Court, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, for investigation, report and recommendation.

The Investigating Judge scheduled several hearings but all were
postponed upon motion of one or the other party. Finally, on 7 May 1993, the Investigating Judge issued an order
scheduling a hearing on 25 May 1993, at the same time warning the parties that
should they be unable to present evidence on that date, they would be deemed to
have terminated presentation of evidence. The parties failed to present evidence on that day. Further, while respondents manifested an
intention to file position papers, the due date therefor passed without their
position papers being submitted to the Investigating Judge.

The Report of the Investigating Judge, dated 4 November 1993, set
out the factual background in the following manner:

“It is alleged that as an off-shoot of Civil Case No. 380
for: ‘Ejectment/Demolition of Illegal
Construction,’ the complainant herein (who is the plaintiff therein) was
issued, upon her motion, by Judge Jacinto Tagum, MTC, Bulan, Sorsogon, a
Special Order of Demolition directing respondent Deputy Sheriff to remove the
portion of a residential house belonging to the defendants therein which was
illegally constructed on the lot owned by plaintiff (herein complainant). Subsequent thereto, or on April 15, 1991,
the complainant paid the respondents Clerk of Court the sum of One Thousand
Five Hundred (P1,500) Pesos as legal fees to cover expenses for the implementation
of the demolition Order. Notwithstanding
payment of the required fees and the hiring of laborers to assist in the
intended demolition, respondent Deputy Sheriff failed to appear on the date set
for the implementation of the Demolition Order. The respondent Clerk of Court’s assurance to implement the
demolition order upon payment of required fees was thus in vain.

In his comment dated June 15, 1992, respondent Deputy Sheriff
denies the charges and explains that upon receipt from respondent Clerk of
Court of the alias writ of demolition on August 9, 1991, he served the same to
the defendant’s daughter Mrs. Jelly Gonzales-Gille, on the same month; and, as
the latter was the actual occupant of the house, she was advised to immediately
and voluntarily vacate the property. Sometime, thereafter, or
on October 14, 1991, he chanced upon
the defendant in the said house and handed to him the said alias writ of
demolition with the advice and instruction to deliver that portion of the land
claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant
however replied that he is leaving the matter to his daughter who is now
presently occupying the property.

Respondent Deputy Sheriff further avers that ‘he was about to
implement the actual demolition’ but respondent Clerk of Court was confined in
the hospital for which [reason] he failed to collect the P1,500.00 fee required
for the actual demolition. He further
claims that had the amount been deposited with the MTC, Clerk of Court, instead
of the RTC, Clerk of Court, the implementation should have been effected at
once. The amount having been recovered
only on June 9, 1992, the demolition can now proceed.

Respondent Clerk of Court, in his Comment dated June 5, 1992
likewise denied the charge and avers that on April 15, 1991 upon the receipt of
the sum of P1,500.00 from complainant’s brother Federico Andamo, he immediately
gave notice to the respondent deputy sheriff regarding the matter. Respondent deputy sheriff, in turn, assured
him (respondent Clerk of Court) that the writ will be acted upon; that it had
been six (6) months since the writ was issued and respondent Clerk of Court is
yet to see the return; that respondent Clerk of Court cannot be deemed to have
been remiss in his responsibility over the respondent Deputy sheriff as he
constantly reminded the latter of the matter; nor can he be said to be
dishonest since the complainant can always request at anytime that the amount
of P1,500.00 she paid be withdrawn.”^[1]

On the basis of the foregoing facts, the Investigating Judge
concluded that Deputy Sheriff Garlan was guilty of dereliction of duty. We agree with this conclusion. Deputy Sheriff Garlan had failed to
implement the 3 April 1989 Writ of Execution issued by the Municipal Trial Court
(“MTC”) of Bulan, Sorsogon, such failure to implement persisted
notwithstanding the issuance of a series of subsequent orders. Firstly, the MTC issued a Special Order
dated 20 August 1989 specifically ordering Deputy Sheriff Garlan, by name, to
implement the Writ of Execution. Secondly, complainant Andamo having requested the Office of the Court
Administrator, Supreme Court, for assistance, Deputy Court Administrator
Juanito Bernad, in a letter dated 22 November 1990, directed Deputy Sheriff
Garlan “to comply without any further delay with the order of demolition
issued by Judge Tagum.”^[2] And,
thirdly, on 30 July 1991, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued^[3]
which, respondent Deputy Sheriff himself admitted, he received on 9 August
1991.

On 15 April 1991, respondent Clerk of Court Roxas received the
amount of P1,500.00 from complainant Rosita Andamo Gillego as estimated
expenses for the demolition. This
amount was transmitted by Clerk of Court Roxas to Deputy Sheriff Garlan more
than a year later, i.e., on 8 June 1992. Deputy Sheriff Garlan used this delay of remittance on the part of Clerk
of Court Roxas to justify his (Garlan’s) delay in implementing the Writ of
Execution. We do not believe that
Deputy Sheriff Garlan may so easily avoid responsibility for his failure for
three (3) years to execute the Writ of Execution, disregarding in the process
three (3) orders enjoining him so to execute that Writ. Under Rule 141, Section 9 of the Rules of
Court, Deputy Sheriff Garlan was obliged to secure the approval of the
issuing court of the estimated expenses and fees for implementation of the Writ of Execution.^[4] Under the Writ and Alias Writ of
Execution, Deputy Sheriff Garlan was duty-bound “to collect from plaintiff Rosita Gillego — the expenses of
demolition, including your fees for the demolition to be chargeable against the
defendants.” Moreover, Garlan knew that the sum of money representing the
estimated expenses of demolition had been deposited with Clerk of Court Roxas
by 15 April 1991; yet, he passively waited for the amount to be remitted to
him. And even after such remittance on
8 June 1992, Deputy Sheriff Garlan did not implement the Writ of
Execution. So far as the record shows,
he has not to date filed his return under
the Writ of Execution. Under
Rule 39, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, Deputy Sheriff Garlan was obliged to
make a return of the Writ of Execution at any time not less than ten (10) days
and not more than sixty (60) days from receipt thereof. The Alias Writ itself expressly commanded
him to submit a report there on within thirty (30) days from notice. These requirements are mandatory; the
sheriff is left with no discretion on whether or not to execute and to make a
return on the Writ of Execution within the period provided by the Rules of
Court.^[5]

Respondent Deputy Sheriff Garlan contended that he had tried to
convince the occupants of the
building to be partially demolished to vacate the land encroached upon and to
do the necessary demolition of portion of their house voluntarily. When, however, Deputy Sheriff Garlan
received the Writ of Execution, his duty was to carry out the Writ and to
demolish the building, rather than to wait around for three (3) or so years and
to try to convince its occupants to do it for him. The occupants had had sufficient time to demolish the portion of
their house encroaching on the land of the complainant; the time for persuasion
was over upon the finality of the judgment and issuance of the Writ of Execution.

Respondent Clerk of Court Roxas, for his part, claimed that he
had exerted every effort to implement the Writ of Demolition by constantly
reminding respondent Deputy Sheriff about the matter. Assuming he had indeed frequently reminded the Deputy Sheriff
about the latter’s duty, we consider that the Clerk of Court was remiss in his
own duty promptly to remit the sum representing the estimated expenses of
demolition to the Deputy Sheriff. Clerk
of Court Roxas offered no sensible reason, to the mind of the Court, for
holding on to the deposit for expenses for an inordinately long period of time
before actually transmitting the same to the Deputy Sheriff. Indeed, by the time he actually remitted the
amount to the Deputy Sheriff, the Alias Writ of Execution had itself become
stale.

The Investigating Judge recommended that the charge against the
respondent Clerk of Court be dismissed while respondent Deputy Sheriff be held
guilty of dereliction of duty. For
reasons set out above, the Court is unable to agree fully with his
recommendation.

WHEREFORE, the
Court hereby FINDS:

(a)      
Clerk of Court Henry Amado Roxas guilty of neglect of duty and
he is hereby REPRIMANDED and WARNED that repetition of the same or similar
offense will be more severely dealt with in the future; and

(b)      
Deputy Sheriff Jesus Garlan guilty of dereliction of duty, and
he is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months and WARNED that repetition of the same or
similar offense will be dealt with more drastically in the future.

Bidin, Romero, Melo, and
Vitug, JJ. concur.

^[1]
Report of the Executive Judge Eudarlio Valencia, pp. 1-4.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 4.

^[3]
Annex “B”, Comment of Respondent Garlan; Rollo, p. 35.

^[4]
Ildefonso Ong v. Maximo Meregildo, A.M. No. P-93-935 (July 5, 1994).

^[5]
Sibulo v. Ramirez, 154 SCRA 101 (1987).