G.R. No. P-04-1907; July 3, 2007
Ildefonso P. Jacinto, Complainant, vs. Bernabe M. Castro, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Echague, Isabela, Respondent.

FACTS

The Regional Trial Court found an accused guilty of reckless imprudence and ordered him to pay complainant Ildefonso Jacinto actual damages and attorney’s fees, with Artemio Salvador being subsidiarily liable. A writ of execution was issued. Respondent Sheriff Bernabe M. Castro reported the accused had no leviable property, leading to a subsidiary writ against Salvador. Jacinto charged Castro with refusal to perform official duty and favoring judgment debtors. He alleged Castro seized a tricycle from the accused and a jeepney from Salvador but released both based on purported deeds of sale presented by third parties. Complainant also gave Castro ₱5,000 for implementation expenses, and Castro failed to respond to a follow-up letter from complainant’s counsel.
In his defense, Castro justified the releases by claiming third parties presented deeds of sale, showing the vehicles were no longer owned by the judgment debtors. He stated the ₱5,000 was for transportation, as no deposit was made with the clerk of court. He apologized for not replying to counsel’s letter, believing the complainant had already relayed the information.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Bernabe M. Castro is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found Castro guilty of simple neglect of duty for multiple violations. First, he failed to adhere to Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court regarding third-party claims. The rule requires a claimant to make a proper affidavit of title and serve it, and the judgment obligee may post an indemnity bond. Castro released the levied vehicles based merely on copies of deeds of sale without requiring sworn affidavits or seeking prior court approval, thereby neglecting the proper procedure.
Second, he violated Section 10(l)(2), Rule 141 on sheriff’s expenses. The rule mandates that payments for execution expenses be deposited with the clerk of court for proper disbursement and liquidation, not given directly to the sheriff. Castro’s direct acceptance of ₱5,000 from the complainant contravened this procedure. Third, he breached Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) by failing to respond within fifteen working days to the letter from complainant’s counsel.
Simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense. While the Office of the Court Administrator recommended a one-month-and-one-day suspension, the Court, citing precedents like Aquino v. Lavadia, imposed a fine equivalent to two months’ salary to avoid hampering office operations, with a stern warning against repetition.