ANACLETA VILLANUEVA, COMPLAINANT, VS. PEDRO SANTOS, DEPUTY SHERIFF OF ZAMBALES, RESPONDENT.

In a letter-complaint in Tagalog filed on January 18, 1978,
Anacleta Villanueva charged Pedro Santos, Deputy Sheriff of Zambales, with
discourtesy and refusal or un­justifiable neglect to perform an official duty
in that the respondent failed to enforce a writ of execution with­in the period
prescribed by law.^[1]

The letter-complaint alleged that Anacleta Villanueva was awarded
death compensation benefits in WC Case No. 1263-ROL; that a writ of execution
was issued in said case on May 24, 1977; that when the complainant learned that
the writ had been transmitted to the Office of the Provin­cial Sheriff of
Zambales, she went there and was informed that the writ had not yet been
served; that upon returning to the Sheriff’s office a few days later, she was
simply told that the writ was served on June 13, 1977; that the complainant
thereafter engaged the services of a lawyer who sent a letter on November 17,
1977 to the Provincial Sheriff of Zambales inquiring what action had been taken
on the writ; that no reply having been received, the complainant’s coun­sel
wrote another letter dated December 9, 1977 again ask­ing what action had been
taken on the writ of execution;
that the letter was personally delivered to the respondent Deputy Provincial
Sheriff by the complainant; and that upon receiving the letter, the respondent
allegedly uttered the following words in Tagalog to the complainant:

“Huwag ka nang mag-abala; saying lamang ang pagod at
ginagastos mo dahil hindi nila aamining bayaran ang hinahabol mo.  Ang mabuti niyan ay mag-asawa ka na lang at
huwag mo ng intindihin at habulin iyong hinahabol mo.”^[2]

In his comment, the respondent alleged that he re­ceived the writ
of execution on June 2, 1977 and he served the same on June 13, 1977 although
the complainant had not paid the sheriff’s fees; that he only accomplished the
return of the writ on September 2, 1977 because of his be­lief that the
judgment-debtor “might be able to produce and pay the amount of obligation
x x x” but no payment was made; that the respondent failed to act on the
letter-request of the complainant’s counsel because of “pressure of work x
x x”; and that he did not intend to insult the complainant but only gave
her fatherly advice “to look out for agents and lawyers who might only be
interested in her money x x x.”^[3]

There is no necessity for a formal investigation to determine the
respondent’s administrative liability. 
He admits having delayed the return of the writ.  The respon­dent only made the return on
September 2, 1977 after he had allegedly served said writ on June 13,
1977.  Section 11, Rule 39 of the Revised
Rules of Court requires that a re­turn should be made of the writ of execution
not more than sixty (60) days after its receipt by the officer.  It is clear, therefore, that the respondent
neglected his duty.

The respondent admits that he “forgot all about the request
of the claimant’s counsel for a copy of the She­riff’s Return.”

The words uttered by the respondent to the complainant are
uncalled for.

Under the established facts, the respondent should be imposed a
penalty of suspension for one (1) month with­out pay.

WHEREFORE, the respondent, Pedro Santos, Deputy Pro­vincial Sheriff of Zambales, is
hereby found guilty of neglect of duty and is suspended from office for a
period of one (1) month without pay effective from the date this decision
becomes final.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Acting C.J., (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De
Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-3.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 3.

^[3]
Rollo, pp, 10-11.