G.R. No. P-06-2169, March 28, 2008
ROGELIO V. URBANOZO, Complainant vs. CRISANTO T. FLORA, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Baguio City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rogelio V. Urbanozo charged respondent Sheriff Crisanto T. Flora with gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct. The complaint stemmed from the respondent’s handling of a writ of execution issued in February 2001. Complainant alleged that respondent asked for and received ₱5,000 for enforcement expenses without issuing a receipt. Despite follow-ups, respondent failed to act on the writ for years. In May 2005, complainant’s daughter received a copy of a sheriff’s return dated June 15, 2001, but a certification from the OIC Clerk of Court revealed this return was only submitted to the court on May 27, 2005, nearly four years late.
In his comment, respondent admitted receiving the ₱5,000 and issuing the sheriff’s return in June 2001. He claimed he made one trip to enforce the writ but was unsuccessful as the judgment debtor, who was the Municipal Assessor, refused cooperation. He attributed his subsequent inaction to his suspension from office from August 2001 to July 2002, after which all pending writs were turned over to the Clerk of Court. He submitted the belated return only after an inquiry from the branch clerk of court in March 2005.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Crisanto T. Flora is administratively liable for gross neglect of duty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross neglect of duty. The Court emphasized that sheriffs have a ministerial duty to execute writs with utmost dispatch and to make periodic reports to the court as mandated by Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. This rule requires a sheriff to report to the court within thirty days if a judgment cannot be fully satisfied and to submit periodic reports every thirty days thereafter until the writ is fully executed or expires.
The legal logic is clear: respondent received the writ in February 2001 and had over five months before his suspension took effect. His single unsuccessful attempt and subsequent failure to submit the required thirty-day report constituted a blatant disregard of a clear rule. His suspension did not excuse this initial failure to report, nor did it justify the nearly four-year delay in submitting the sheriff’s return to the court. This delay rendered the court unable to monitor the execution’s progress and deprived the complainant of a timely remedy. Such inaction constitutes gross neglect, defined as a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform a duty. The Court found no merit in his defenses, as the duty to report was immediate and non-delegable. His actions undermined the integrity of the judicial process and warranted the severe penalty of dismissal from service.