EDITHA S. SANTUYO, COMPLAINANT, VS. HERBERTO R. BENITO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 27, NAGA CITY, RESPONDENT.

Santuyo versus Benito

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Editha Santuyo, acting as attorney-in-fact for the prevailing plaintiffs in two final and executory civil actions, charges Sheriff Herberto Benito of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 27, with gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and gross misconduct. The complaint arises from the sheriff's alleged failure to promptly and completely implement a writ of possession, and from the expenses he withdrew from the court in connection with that implementation. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct for sheriffs as agents of the law: their duty to execute writs is mandatory and ministerial, and their conduct must be beyond suspicion.

Procedural History

The case began as a verified complaint filed with the Office of the Court Administrator, which docketed it as an administrative matter against the respondent sheriff. The Court Administrator studied the complaint and the sheriff's comment and submitted a report and recommendation dated February 28, 2005, finding the sheriff's explanations for the delay suspicious and sketchy. The administrative matter was then elevated to the Supreme Court, which decided it in August 2006 through a Division of five justices, with Justice Garcia writing the opinion.

Facts

Santuyo's principals won two actions for annulment of sale before the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 27. The Court of Appeals, in a decision of November 29, 1999, nullified the sale and ordered the plaintiffs placed in material possession of the property, and the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed that decision, which was entered on June 5, 2001. A writ of execution issued on March 13, 2002, and a writ of possession on March 10, 2003. On March 8, 2004, after more than a year had passed, the trial court ordered the respondent sheriff to continue and complete the execution and to place the complainant in possession of the one thousand two hundred square meter area of the property, where a Caltex gasoline station and a two-storey house occupied by Amado Sanao stood.

According to the complainant, the sheriff failed to complete the order despite repeated follow-ups, and withdrew from the court five thousand pesos for hauling and miscellaneous expenses, sixteen thousand three hundred pesos for two days of labor of fifteen persons and five security personnel, and thirty-six thousand pesos for a three-day labor cost of thirty persons. She alleged that the five thousand pesos was spent serving the writ on Raul Santos, a former owner who was neither the actual possessor nor the operator of the gasoline station; that the sheriff traveled to Manila without a travel order or notice, stayed in an undisclosed hotel, and then lost all receipts; that fewer than ten people appeared for the supposed execution; and that the thirty-six thousand pesos went to an independent labor contractor who accomplished nothing. She summed up that she was thrice robbed in the total amount of fifty-seven thousand three hundred pesos.

The sheriff answered that he received five thousand pesos on March 14, 2003, that he told the complainant he could not turn over the premises because the writ had not yet been served on Raul Santos, and that he left for Manila that evening but served the writ on Santos's widow only on March 16, 2003. He claimed he made manifestations for each expense, all approved by the court, and rendered a liquidation; that the thirty-six thousand pesos was paid to Rodolfo Segovia, who provided the ejectment team; and that on July 14, 2003 the team forced open the steel gate and ejected the occupants, continuing even after receiving a photocopy of a temporary restraining order and stopping only upon receipt of the certified true copy. He submitted his sheriff's reports on December 4, 2003 and April 12, 2004.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent sheriff is guilty of gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and gross misconduct for failing to promptly and completely implement the writ of possession.
• Whether or not the respondent sheriff satisfactorily justified the expenses he withdrew in connection with the execution.
• Whether or not the respondent sheriff is administratively liable, and if so, for what offense and what penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 23, paragraph t, of the Civil Service Law, as cited by the Court, provides:

Section 23. Administrative Offenses. — The following are considered administrative offenses: x x x (t) Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

This is the offense the Court found the sheriff to have committed, and it supplies the range of penalties for a first offense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the sheriff was clearly remiss in his ministerial duty to implement the possessory writ promptly and expeditiously, and was tardy in submitting his report. It adopted the Court Administrator's observation that the explanations were suspicious and at best sketchy: the sheriff asked for funds to execute the writ while knowing he could not yet carry it out; he traveled to Manila without a travel order; he deviated from standard procedure without notifying the court; he liquidated only on March 22, 2004, more than a year later, with an affidavit of loss that did not even name the hotel; his schedule for March 2003 was already full with travel orders for each day; and his query on the temporary restraining order was made only on September 22, 2003, long after the order had ceased to be effective. The Court stressed that the duty of sheriffs to promptly execute a writ is mandatory and ministerial, and that sheriffs have no discretion on whether or not to implement it.

On the second issue, the Court found that the sheriff failed to satisfactorily justify the items of expense. There was no basis to pay the independent contractor in full since the contracted task was halted, and despite the complainant's steadfast remittance of the proper amounts and the long lapse of time, the sheriff still failed to execute the writs to completion.

On the third issue, the Court found the respondent guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, an offense which, under Section 23, paragraph t, of the Civil Service Law, carries the penalty of suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first offense.

Doctrine

The duty of sheriffs to promptly execute a writ is mandatory and ministerial; sheriffs have no discretion on whether or not to implement it, and litigants need not follow up its implementation. Sheriffs are agents of the law who must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence, and their conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but above all must be beyond suspicion. Failure to promptly implement a writ and to submit the required reports constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service under Section 23, paragraph t, of the Civil Service Law.

Disposition

The Court adjudged Sheriff Herberto Benito guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and suspended him for six months without pay, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: a sheriff's duty to execute a writ is mandatory and ministerial, and his conduct must be beyond suspicion. Examiners use this case to test the administrative liability of sheriffs for delay and unjustified expenses in executing final judgments.