G.R. No. A.M. No. P-17-3676, June 5, 2017
Eleanor Olympia-Geronilla and Emma Olympia Gutierrez, represented by Atty. Beatriz O. Geronilla-Villegas, Complainants vs. Ricardo V. Montemayor, Jr., Sheriff IV and Atty. Luningning Centron, Clerk of Court VI and Ex-Officio Sheriff, Respondents

FACTS

Complainants were the prevailing parties in an ejectment case. After the RTC affirmed the MCTC decision, an alias writ of execution and a subsequent writ of demolition were issued to enforce the judgment. From May to November 2011, complainants coordinated with respondent Sheriff Montemayor for the demolition. Montemayor refused, claiming the defendant, Aceveda, presented “believable” documents from the DAR showing ownership of a portion of the land, and advised a resurvey. Complainants insisted all issues were settled in the ejectment case.
In December 2011, Montemayor scheduled a demolition and requested funds. Complainants gave him ₱15,000.00, for which he signed a receipt. The demolition did not proceed due to alleged flooding, and Montemayor later suggested securing permission from the DENR-CENRO. He failed to return the money. Complainants reported his inaction and the monetary issue to respondent Atty. Centron, the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, but she took no appropriate action.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Sheriff Montemayor and Atty. Centron are administratively liable for their actions and inaction in relation to the enforcement of the writ of demolition.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. For Sheriff Montemayor, the Court found him guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct. A sheriff’s duty in executing a writ is ministerial; he has no discretion to modify, substitute, or question the judgment. His refusal to implement the writ based on his own assessment of Aceveda’s documents constituted a dereliction of this duty. His act of soliciting and receiving ₱15,000.00 without following the proper procedure under Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court (which requires court approval and liquidation) and failing to refund it after the cancelled demolition constituted dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. He was dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment.
For Atty. Centron, as Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, she had the duty to supervise Sheriff Montemayor and ensure the writ’s enforcement. Her failure to act on the complainants’ formal reports about Montemayor’s refusal to perform his duty and his irregular receipt of money constituted Gross Neglect of Duty and Simple Misconduct. She was suspended for six months without pay. The Court emphasized that clerks of court, as ex-officio sheriffs, bear administrative responsibility for the efficient execution of court processes under their supervision.