A.M. No. P-02-1540; March 6, 2003
Eulogio B. Guevarra, complainant, vs. Vicente S. Sicat, Jr., Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Eulogio B. Guevarra was the prevailing plaintiff in an ejectment case. After the Municipal Trial Court’s decision became final, a writ of execution and later an order of demolition were issued. Respondent Sheriff Vicente S. Sicat, Jr. was tasked with implementation. The complainant alleged that on various dates in 1997 and 1998, the respondent demanded and received from him sums of money totaling P9,700.00, with the amounts of P5,000.00 and P3,000.00 evidenced by receipts, intended for sheriffs expenses. Despite these payments and repeated follow-ups, the respondent failed to implement the writ and demolition order.
In his defense, respondent admitted receiving P8,000.00, for which he issued receipts, but claimed he gave this money to persons hired to assist in the demolition. He argued the demolition failed because the defendants placed barbed wire and issued threats. The hired individuals executed an affidavit stating their willingness to return the money to the complainant.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Vicente S. Sicat, Jr. is administratively liable for his actions and failure to implement the court’s writ of execution and order of demolition.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court found him guilty of Simple Misconduct and Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duties. The legal logic is twofold. First, respondent violated the explicit procedure under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court for sheriffs expenses. The Rule requires the sheriff to first estimate expenses for court approval, after which the interested party deposits the amount with the clerk of court for disbursement, subject to liquidation and refund. Respondent directly demanded and received money from the complainant without following this procedure, constituting misconduct.
Second, his failure to implement the writ constitutes inefficiency. His excuse—that defendants placed barbed wire and made threats—was deemed flimsy. As an agent of the court, he had the duty to overcome such obstacles by seeking police or barangay assistance to enforce the court order diligently. His inaction unduly delayed the administration of justice. While no corrupt intent was proven, his procedural violations and lack of reasonable diligence in performing a mandatory duty warranted sanction. The Court suspended him for one month without pay and imposed a P10,000.00 fine, with a warning against repetition.