G.R. No. P-06-2250. March 24, 2008
MARY ANN ESTOQUE, Complainant, vs. REYNALDO O. GIRADO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Davao City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Mary Ann Estoque was a plaintiff in Civil Case No. 23-242-94, where an Amicable Settlement was approved in 1994. Due to the defendants’ non-compliance, an alias writ of execution was issued on July 7, 2000. Complainant alleged that respondent Sheriff Reynaldo O. Girado unreasonably failed and refused to implement this alias writ. Despite the writ’s issuance, Sheriff Girado did not execute it and, crucially, failed to submit any Sheriff’s Return detailing his actions, as required by the Rules of Court.
The trial court issued multiple orders from 2001 to 2004 directing Sheriff Girado to submit his return, show cause for his inaction, and explain why he should not be cited for contempt. The record shows at least thirteen specific instances where the court or the complainant sought compliance. Respondent ignored these repeated directives. The complainant was forced to file several motions and requests, including one for the assignment of a substitute sheriff, due to respondent’s persistent inaction and failure to file the mandatory returns.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Reynaldo O. Girado is administratively liable for his failure to implement the alias writ of execution and to submit the required Sheriff’s Return.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found Sheriff Girado guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. A sheriff’s duty to execute a writ is ministerial and mandatory. Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court explicitly requires the officer to make a return to the court immediately after satisfaction of the judgment, or if not satisfied within thirty days, to report and state the reasons. Periodic reports every thirty days are mandated until the judgment is fully satisfied.
Respondent’s complete inaction—his failure to implement the writ and, more egregiously, his disregard of multiple court orders to file a return—constitutes a blatant neglect of this fundamental duty. His inaction deprived the court and the winning party of knowledge regarding the execution’s status and unduly delayed the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that sheriffs play a crucial role in the execution of judgments, and their failure to perform their duties with diligence undermines public trust in the judiciary. Considering the absence of corruption or ill will, the infraction was classified as simple neglect of duty. The penalty imposed was a fine equivalent to one month’s salary with a stern warning.