BIENVENIDO L. PUNZALAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. RUMEL M. MACALISANG, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 258, PARAÑAQUE CITY, RESPONDENT.

Punzalan versus Macalisang

The Case

This is an administrative case for misfeasance and malfeasance of duties filed by Bienvenido Punzalan, a litigant in a civil suit for specific performance with damages, against Sheriff Rumel Macalisang of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 258. Punzalan complains that the sheriff issued a notice of garnishment on his bank account even while his motions to quash the writ of execution were still pending before the court. The case matters because it draws the line between a sheriff's ministerial duty to execute judgments with reasonable celerity and the administrative liability that attaches when he oversteps that duty or neglects the return required by the Rules of Court.

Procedural History

The case began as a complaint-affidavit dated December 22, 2003 filed directly with the Supreme Court, which referred it to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation. The Office of the Court Administrator submitted its agenda report on July 15, 2004, finding that the sheriff had transgressed established rules in enforcing the writ, particularly by failing to submit a sheriff's return, but recommending only a reprimand because bad faith was not sufficiently established. In a resolution dated September 27, 2004, the Court required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution on the pleadings. The sheriff manifested his willingness; the complainant did not comply, and so the Court deemed the case submitted for resolution. The Court then resolved the administrative matter in its decision of November 27, 2006.

Facts

Punzalan was one of the plaintiffs in a civil case for specific performance with damages before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City. On March 30, 2001, that court rendered a decision based on a compromise agreement. Punzalan's former counsel, Attorney Grandy Trieste, later filed a motion for a lawyer's lien, which the court granted on March 25, 2003. On July 12, 2003, the court issued an order granting the issuance of a writ of execution for the collection of thirty-six thousand pesos in professional fees in favor of the former counsel. The writ itself was issued on July 25, 2003, and on August 6, 2003, the sheriff, accompanied by the former counsel, served a copy of the writ on Punzalan.

On August 28, 2003, more than a month after the writ issued, Punzalan filed a motion to quash the writ, followed by a supplemental motion to quash. On October 8, 2003, the former counsel wrote the sheriff asking him to prepare a notice of garnishment because of Punzalan's continued refusal to honor his obligation. The notice of garnishment was dated October 10, 2003, but the bank actually received it only on December 1, 2003. In the meantime, on November 12, 2003, the court denied the motions to quash, and on November 25, 2003, Punzalan filed a motion for reconsideration. Upon receipt of the notice, the bank froze his account.

The sheriff explained that there was no temporary restraining order from any court, and that if he had not acted, the former counsel would have filed an administrative case against him. The Office of the Court Administrator found that the sheriff had failed to submit the required sheriff's return after implementing the writ, but that bad faith and undue favor to the former counsel were not convincingly shown, and recommended a reprimand.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent sheriff acted with undue haste and beyond the scope of his ministerial duty in issuing the notice of garnishment while the motions to quash the writ of execution were still pending.
• Whether or not the respondent sheriff is administratively liable for failing to submit a sheriff's return after implementing the writ of execution.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, as cited in the decision, provides:

When the judgment is satisfied in part or in full, the officer shall forthwith make a return and submit it to the court with the corresponding proceedings. 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 why full satisfaction could not be made. The court may upon motion issue an order requiring the officer to show cause why he should not be punished for neglect of duty.

This provision fixes the sheriff's twin duties after enforcement: to make a return upon satisfaction, and to report within thirty days if the judgment cannot be fully satisfied. The respondent's failure to comply with it is the ground for his administrative liability.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the sheriff did not act with undue haste. The writ of execution issued on July 25, 2003 had already attained finality when Punzalan filed his motion to quash on August 28, 2003, which was beyond the reglementary period to assail the order. Although the notice of garnishment was dated October 10, 2003, the bank received it only on December 1, 2003, after the court had denied the motion to quash on November 12, 2003. The Court said that waiting more than two weeks to enforce the writ cannot be considered as having been issued without authority or as a transgression of settled rules. It stressed the governing principle:

When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate.

The Court added that the execution of judgment is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of the law, and that unless restrained by a court order, a sheriff should always see to it that execution is never unduly delayed. It found no convincing evidence of undue favor to the former counsel, and noted that alleged errors in implementation do not give rise to liability where good faith appears.

On the second issue, however, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that the respondent failed to submit a sheriff's return in violation of Section 14 of Rule 39. It held that this constitutes simple neglect of duty, and that in the absence of bad faith or malice, a mere reprimand was warranted.

Doctrine

A sheriff's duty to execute a writ is ministerial. Once the writ is placed in his hands, and absent any restraining order or instruction to the contrary, he must proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate. He does not decide whether the writ is defective; that question belongs to the court, and a pending motion to quash does not by itself restrain execution. But the same Rules impose on him the duty under Section 14 of Rule 39 to make a return upon satisfaction of the judgment, or to report to the court within thirty days after receipt of the writ if full satisfaction cannot be made. Failure to submit that return is simple neglect of duty, punishable by reprimand where bad faith or malice is absent.

Disposition

The Court found Sheriff Rumel Macalisang guilty of simple neglect of duty and reprimanded him, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the execution of judgment is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of the law, so the sheriff must execute with reasonable celerity unless restrained, yet he must never forget his sheriff's return. Examiners use this case to test the ministerial nature of execution, the effect of a pending motion to quash, and the administrative liability for simple neglect of duty under Section 14 of Rule 39.