A.M. No. P-93-781, December 2, 1994
Atty. Nerio G. Zamora vs. Tomas A. Jumamoy and Domingo B. Brunidor

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Nerio Zamora charged respondents, deputy sheriffs of the MTCC of Tagbilaran City, with gross inefficiency, incompetence, and malpractice. The complaint alleged that for over two years, respondents failed to implement writs of execution in several civil and criminal cases, reporting for work at their whims. It further accused them of accepting compromise payments from losing parties without court authority and appropriating these for their own benefit, to the prejudice of the complainant and his clients.
In their comments, respondents denied the charges. Jumamoy claimed he had returned several writs unsatisfied, noting defendants’ promises to pay, while Brunidor alleged partial payments were made and consignation was effected in one case. Initially, the complainant moved to withdraw his complaint after respondents apologized and promised to perform their duties diligently in open court. However, the Court, citing jurisprudence that administrative proceedings cannot depend on a complainant’s whims, ordered a full investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for gross inefficiency and conduct prejudicial to the service.

RULING

Yes, respondents are administratively liable. During the investigation, respondents admitted under oath to the charges against them. Their own comments revealed they withheld the implementation of writs based merely on judgment debtors’ pleas for time or promises to pay, subsequently returning the writs unsatisfied or partially satisfied. This constitutes a deliberate failure to exercise due diligence.
The legal logic is anchored on the sheriffs’ mandatory duty under Section 15, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to diligently proceed to satisfy a judgment. The Court ruled that sheriffs cannot simply rely on debtors’ promises; they must actively seek leviable property. Delay in execution can prejudice judgment creditors by allowing debtors to conceal assets. While compassion is understandable, it cannot compromise the public-trust character of their office. Every court personnel must be circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. The complainant’s offer to withdraw is immaterial, as administrative cases involve public interest and the Court’s disciplinary power. Considering their admission, remorse, and it being their first offense, a two-month suspension without pay was imposed.