G.R. No. P-05-2054; April 30, 2008
Mila L. Dacdac vs. Victor C. Ramos, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna

FACTS

Complainant Mila L. Dacdac, representing her minor daughter, obtained a final and executory judgment for support against Mario A. Alvarado. A writ of execution was issued, leading to a sheriff’s sale on November 14, 2003, where the levied property was sold to the plaintiff as the lone bidder. On November 2, 2004, the trial court ordered respondent Sheriff Victor Ramos to execute a certificate of sale. Ramos initially withheld issuance, demanding payment of a legal fee, but the court ruled on February 23, 2005, that such fee was inapplicable and ordered him to issue the certificate within ten days.
Despite this clear directive, respondent refused to execute the certificate. He justified his inaction by citing a Manifestation filed by the defendant’s counsel on March 4, 2005, requesting a hold on the order’s execution, and an opposing motion filed by the plaintiff. Ramos claimed he was awaiting the hearing and resolution of these motions, scheduled for May 30, 2005, before taking any action.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Victor Ramos is administratively liable for dereliction of duty for his failure to promptly execute the court-ordered certificate of sale.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of dereliction of duty. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). A sheriff’s duty in the execution of a writ is mandatory and purely ministerial. Upon receipt of a valid court order, a sheriff must proceed with reasonable speed to implement it, unless legally restrained. In this case, no temporary restraining order or injunction was issued by the court to halt the implementation of the February 23, 2005 Order.
Respondent’s explanation for his delay—awaiting the resolution of pending motions—was untenable. The motions did not constitute a legal restraint that excused his compliance with a final and executory directive. His inaction constituted disrespect and defiance of a lawful court order. The delay of almost four years from the auction sale (November 2003) to the eventual issuance of the certificate (March 2007) caused material prejudice to the minor plaintiff, as it prevented the commencement of the redemption period and the eventual consolidation of ownership, thereby unjustly deferring the benefits of the judgment.
For this infraction, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act would be dealt with more severely.