AM P 03 1673; (August, 2003) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-03-1673; August 25, 2003
Louie Trinidad, represented by his Attorney-in-fact, Nora Trinidad, Complainant, vs. Sotero S. Paclibar, Sheriff III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Legazpi City, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Louie Trinidad was the prevailing party in Civil Case No. 9290. A writ of execution was issued and assigned to respondent Sheriff Sotero Paclibar for implementation. The complaint alleged that on December 5, 2000, respondent received P90,000.00 from the judgment debtors in full satisfaction but failed to immediately remit the full amount to the complainant. Instead, he initially claimed he only collected P40,000.00, turning over just P37,000.00 after deducting a P3,000.00 fee, and later made partial payments totaling P63,000.00 over several months in 2001.
In his Answer, respondent admitted collecting a total of P85,558.80 from the debtors, representing the principal award and interest. He claimed to have eventually remitted P106,000.00 to the complainant’s attorney-in-fact, with a final payment of P40,000.00 made in April 2002, after learning of the administrative complaint.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Sotero Paclibar is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of execution.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) findings. A sheriff plays a vital fiduciary role in the administration of justice and is required to act with integrity and promptness. The duty to properly execute a writ is mandatory, not merely directory. Respondent’s act of withholding the collected money from the prevailing party and remitting it only in installments, particularly after becoming aware of the complaint, constitutes a clear breach of this duty and amounts to dishonesty. His subsequent full payment of the obligation, while an act of reparation, does not absolve him of administrative liability. However, acknowledging this restitution and his admission of misconduct, the Court exercised leniency. Following the OCA’s recommendation, respondent Sheriff Sotero S. Paclibar is found GUILTY of dishonesty and is SUSPENDED from office for six (6) months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.