A.M. No. P-05-2099 ; October 31, 2006
Brimel Bautista, complainant, vs. Clerk of Court Abelardo B. Orque, Jr., Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tabaco City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Brimel Bautista charged respondent Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff Abelardo B. Orque, Jr. with Neglect of Duty and/or Incompetence for refusing to enforce several writs of execution and a writ of demolition issued by the MTCC of Tabaco City in separate ejectment cases. The core allegation centered on Civil Case No. 68, where despite the issuance of a Writ of Execution on November 17, 2004, and a subsequent Writ of Demolition on January 20, 2005, the respondent failed to implement them. The complainant asserted that the respondent’s inaction allowed the defendants to file a motion for reconsideration, causing further delay, and that even after its denial, the respondent still refused enforcement, citing in his Sheriff’s Report an error in the lot number identification (Lot No. 270 vs. Lot No. 272).
The respondent, in his defense, denied the charges. He claimed he served the writs in Civil Case No. 68 in November 2004 and submitted a partial return. Regarding the Writ of Demolition, he served a Notice to Vacate but subsequently discovered the lot number discrepancy, believing Lot No. 270 was owned by other parties. He argued he exercised prudence to avoid violating private rights. For the other cases (Civil Cases Nos. 64, 66, and 67), he noted the writs were addressed to the RTC Sheriff and that the MTCC eventually relieved him of duty to implement them via an April 19, 2005 Order.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Abelardo B. Orque, Jr. is administratively liable for neglect of duty in failing to implement the court writs.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable for dereliction of duty, but only concerning the writs in Civil Case No. 68. The Court emphasized that the execution of judgments is a crucial phase, and sheriffs must implement writs with due care and utmost diligence. The respondent’s justification for non-enforcement—the lot number error—was untenable. The MTCC, in its January 18, 2005 Order, had already clarified that the parties had agreed on the property’s identity during the pre-trial conference, rendering the lot number discrepancy a non-issue. The respondent’s duty was to obey the court order, not to question a matter already resolved by the issuing court. His failure to act with dispatch constituted neglect.
However, the Court exonerated the respondent regarding the writs in Civil Cases Nos. 64, 66, and 67. The writs for those cases were addressed to the RTC Sheriff, not him, and the MTCC later officially relieved him of that duty. Considering mitigating factors—including the actual lot number error, the delay not being overly protracted, and the respondent’s 30 years of service—the Court imposed a fine of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) with a stern warning against repetition.