HORACIO M. PASCUAL, PETITIONER, VS. GERRY C. DUNCAN, RESPONDENT.

This administrative matter refers to the charge of dereliction of
duty brought by the complainant, Atty. Horacio Pascual, against Gerry C.
Duncan, the deputy sheriff of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 49 of
Manila.

The facts of the case are as follows:

In a sworn letter-complaint dated June 14, 1986, the complainant,
counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 85-31770 entitled Viron Garments
Manufacturing Co., Inc., v. Sarra Traders, Inc., alleged that the respondent,
for unknown reasons, failed to appear at the public auction which the
respondent himself scheduled pursuant to a writ of execution for the sale of
the listed properties of the defendant in the aforementioned case.

As a result of such letter-complaint, this Court, in its
resolution dated November 10, 1986 (Rollo, p. 5) required the respondent to
file an answer.

On June 10, 1987 and September 21, 1988, Atty. Bartolome Flores,
head of the Documentation Unit, reiterated the order of this Court for the
respondent to file an answer to the letter-complaint. (Rollo, pp. 6 and 9)

Almost two (2) years after he was ordered to do so, or on
September 30, 1988, the respondent filed his answer (Rollo, pp. 10­-12) where
he claimed that at the time of the said auction, he was sick with
influenza. To support his claim, the
respondent presented a xerox copy of his approved application for leave and a
xerox copy of his daily time record for the month of June 1986. (Rollo, pp. 13-14)

We find the respondent guilty of both dereliction of duty and
contemptuous disregard of lawful orders of this Court.

We agree with the finding of the then Court Administrator,
Meynardo A. Tiro, to wit:

“x x x there can be no question that respondent caused the undue
delay in the enforcement or implementation of the judgment. Assuming arguendo that he was down
with influenza on June 11, 1986, respondent should have at least informed the
prevailing party or the court of his predicament so that the assignment of
temporary replacement could be made.”

It would have been an easy matter for the respondent to inform
either the prevailing party or the court that he could not be present at the
public auction. From the documents that
the respondent submitted, it can be gleaned that his sick leave started on June
10, a day before the scheduled auction. He had ample time to inform the interested parties of his
non-appearance. Yet, he did not do
so. This omission by the respondent was
not explained at all in his answer.

In the case of Francisco v. Berones, 121 SCRA 221, 226-227
[1983], this Court ruled that the respondent deputy sheriff was guilty of grave
dereliction of duty when among others, he failed without valid cause to appear
on the scheduled date of the auction sale which he himself had scheduled.

The importance of the duties of the officers charged with the
enforcement of execution of judgment has been stressed by this Court in the
case of Moya v. Bassig, 138 SCRA 49, 52-53 [1985], to quote:

xxx    xxx   xxx

“It is undisputable that the most difficult phase 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
decisions, orders or other processes of the courts of justice and the like
would be futile. x x x”

The respondent’s lack of concern for his duty and responsibility
is manifest not only from the abovementioned but also from the unexplained
delay he incurred in filing his answer. Every officer or employee in the Judiciary is duty bound to obey the
orders and processes of the Supreme Court without the least delay. The question asked and the explanation given
are extremely simple. The answer could
have been completed in a couple of hours or less. It took the respondent almost two (2) years to submit it. It seems that the respondent was not interested in clearing his name as soon as
possible. It is noted that the
respondent, in response to the June 10, 1987 letter, asked this Court to extend
the filing of his answer until June 29, 1987. (Rollo, p. 7) However, it was only on September 30, 1988, after more
than a year from that date and only after a third directive was issued ordering
him to file his answer, that the respondent finally answered. This cavalier attitude cannot be
countenanced.

WHEREFORE, the
penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay, the period of which should
not be charged to his accumulated leave, is hereby imposed on respondent Gerry
C. Duncan, Deputy Sheriff of Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 49, for
dereliction of duty and disobedience to lawful orders, with a warning that a
repetition of the same or of acts calling for disciplinary action will be dealt
with more severely.

Bidin, Davide, Jr., Romero, and
Melo, JJ., concur.