ANGELES A. VELASCO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. PROSPERO V. TABLIZO, Respondent.

Velasco versus Tablizo

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Attorney Angeles A. Velasco, counsel of record for prevailing plaintiffs in two civil cases, against Attorney Prospero V. Tablizo, Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court in Virac, Catanduanes. The complainant charges the respondent with gross neglect of duty and misconduct for refusing to implement two writs of execution issued by a municipal trial court. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct for clerks of court acting as ex-officio sheriffs: execution is mandatory and ministerial, and a sheriff who sits on a writ commits a grave offense against public accountability.

Procedural History

The complainant first filed her complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator and, separately, with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Because the acts complained of related to the respondent's functions as an officer of the court, the Ombudsman referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator, which in turn referred the complaint to the respondent for comment. He filed none. The Office of the Court Administrator sent a tracker directing him to comment; again he filed none. The Supreme Court itself required him to file a comment; still he filed none. The Court then dispensed with the comment and referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the respondent be held liable and fined 20,000 pesos. The Court re-docketed the case as a regular administrative matter and required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for decision on the records. Neither party manifested, and both were deemed to have waived compliance. The case was decided by the Supreme Court as an administrative matter.

Facts

The complainant was counsel for the plaintiffs in two civil cases before the Municipal Trial Court of Virac, Catanduanes. In the first, the trial court rendered a decision favorable to her clients and, on motion for immediate execution, issued a writ of execution on 25 May 1999 stating that the decision had become final and executory. The writ commanded the respondent to eject the defendant from the property, demand 47,500 pesos in rent plus arrears and interest, 15,000 pesos in attorney's fees, and other costs, make reports, file them with the trial court, and levy on the defendant's real properties if personal properties were insufficient. The respondent received the writ on 5 July 1999 and refused to implement it.

In the second case, the trial court rendered a decision favorable to the same clients and issued a writ of execution on 24 February 1999, likewise stating that the decision had become final and executory. This writ commanded the respondent to eject the defendant, restore possession to the plaintiffs, demand an amount equivalent to the average yield or cost of rent plus 10,000 pesos in attorney's fees and 700 pesos for every court appearance and other costs, make reports, file them with the trial court, and levy on real properties if personal properties were insufficient. The respondent received this writ on 26 February 1999 and again refused to implement it.

Almost eight months passed without execution of the first writ and almost twelve months without execution of the second. The complainant filed her complaint in February and March 2000. The respondent never filed a comment despite repeated directives from the Office of the Court Administrator and from the Court itself. The records also showed that he had compulsorily retired from the service on 4 September 2000 and was not entitled to retirement benefits under Republic Act Number 1616.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent, as Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff, is liable for gross neglect of duty and refusal to perform official duty for failing to implement the writs of execution placed in his hands.
• Whether or not the respondent's repeated failure to file a comment on the charges amounts to an admission of guilt.
• Whether or not dismissal, the penalty for gross neglect of duty, may be imposed on a respondent who has already compulsorily retired from the service.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9, paragraph (a) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, on immediate payment on demand, provides:

SEC. 9. Execution of judgments for money, how enforced. — (a) Immediate payment on demand. — The officer shall enforce an execution of a judgment for money by demanding from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees.

This defines the sheriff's first duty upon receiving a money judgment: to demand immediate payment from the obligor.

Section 9, paragraph (b) of Rule 39, on satisfaction by levy, provides:

(b) Satisfaction by levy. — If the judgment obligor cannot pay all or part of the obligation, the officer shall levy upon the properties of the judgment obligor of every kind and nature whatsoever which may be disposed of for value and not otherwise exempt from execution giving the latter the option to immediately choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon, sufficient to satisfy the judgment.

This supplies the remedy when payment is not made: levy on the obligor's properties, personal first and then real.

Section 10, paragraph (c) of Rule 39, on delivery or restitution of real property, provides:

(c) Delivery or restitution of real property. — The officer shall demand of the person against whom the judgment for the delivery or restitution of real property is rendered and all persons claiming rights under him to peaceably vacate the property within three (3) working days, and restore possession thereof to the judgment obligee; otherwise, the officer shall oust all such persons therefrom with the assistance, if necessary, of appropriate peace officers, and employing such means as may be reasonably necessary to retake possession, and place the judgment obligee in possession of such property.

This governs the ejectment and restitution components of both writs, which the respondent simply ignored.

Section 14 of Rule 39, on the return of the writ of execution, provides:

SEC. 14. Return of writ of execution. — The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reason therefor.

This imposes the reporting duty that the respondent also failed to discharge.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the respondent is liable for gross neglect of duty and refusal to perform official duty. Clerks of court are ex-officio sheriffs within their territorial jurisdiction, and as such they have the sworn duty to enforce the writs placed in their hands. The implementation of writs of execution is mandatory and ministerial; when writs are placed in the hands of sheriffs, they must implement them promptly and strictly to the letter. The Court walked through what the respondent should have done under Rule 39: demand immediate payment of the full amount and lawful fees, turn over the fees to the clerk of court the same day, levy on the defendants' properties if payment was not made, demand that the defendants vacate and restore possession to the plaintiffs, and make returns on the writs to the issuing court. The respondent did nothing. He refused to perform his official duty without justifiable reason and totally ignored the Rules of Court.

On the second issue, the Court held that his silence is deemed an admission of guilt. He had been directed several times to file his comment and had several opportunities to answer the charges, and he never did.

On the third issue, the Court noted that gross neglect of duty and refusal to perform official duty are grave offenses under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, gross neglect being punishable by dismissal for the first offense. Because the respondent had already compulsorily retired and was not entitled to retirement benefits, the Court imposed a fine in lieu of dismissal. The Court stressed that execution is the fruit of the suit and the life of the law, and that judgments left unexecuted because of the negligence of those charged with their execution delay the administration of justice and render the decisions inutile.

Doctrine

• Clerks of court are ex-officio sheriffs within their territorial jurisdiction and have the sworn duty to enforce writs of execution.
• The implementation of writs of execution is mandatory and ministerial; sheriffs must implement them promptly and strictly to the letter.
• Failure of sheriffs to implement writs of execution constitutes gross neglect of duty.
• A respondent's repeated failure to file a comment despite directives from the Office of the Court Administrator and the Court is deemed an admission of guilt.
• Where the respondent has already retired and dismissal can no longer be imposed, the Court may impose a fine in lieu of dismissal.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty and refusal to perform official duty and fined him 40,000 pesos, and directed the Office of the Court Administrator to investigate the charges in the separate sworn letter-complaint.

Remember This

Memorize the line: execution is the fruit of the suit and the life of the law, and the sheriff's duty to implement writs is mandatory and ministerial. Examiners use this case on the administrative liability of clerks of court as ex-officio sheriffs, on gross neglect of duty for unexecuted writs, and on the fine in lieu of dismissal after retirement.