A.M. No. P-05-1996; April 21, 2009
Estelito R. Marabe, Complainant, vs. Tyrone V. Tan, Sheriff IV, OCC, Regional Trial Court, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Estelito R. Marabe, President of Asian Hills Bank, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Sheriff Tyrone V. Tan for inefficiency and ineffectiveness. The charge stemmed from Tan’s alleged failure to implement six writs of execution issued in favor of the Bank despite receiving advanced amounts for implementation expenses. In his defense, Tan admitted receiving the writs but claimed the Bank’s counsel requested implementation for only three cases. He argued that the judgment debtors were insolvent, with some being government employees whose salaries could not be garnished, and others merely making unfulfilled promises of payment.
The case was referred for investigation. The Investigating Judge found that Tan received sheriff’s fees via cashier’s checks payable to third parties. He submitted Partial Sheriff’s Reports dated December 1, 2003, for writs received in 2001, but these reports lacked critical details. They did not state when the writs were served, were not shown to have been furnished to the parties, and contained no records of proceedings. The reports’ veracity was doubtful, appearing prepared only recently. The Judge found a two-year period of inaction without justification.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Tyrone V. Tan is administratively liable for his failure to properly implement the writs of execution and submit timely reports.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the Investigating Judge and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). A sheriff plays a critical role in the execution of judgments, which is the fruit and end of litigation. Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court mandates that if a judgment cannot be fully satisfied within thirty days, the officer must report to the court and state the reasons.
Respondent failed in this duty. He did not implement the writs with dispatch, allowing a two-year delay without sufficient explanation. His Partial Reports were belated, uniform in date, and lacked essential information, failing to account for his actions. Furthermore, he utterly failed to implement the writs in two of the cases. This conduct constitutes simple neglect of duty, defined as the disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. Considering the gravity of the delay and the complete inaction on some writs, the Court deemed a three-month suspension from office as the appropriate penalty, with a stern warning against repetition.