A.M. No. 133 July 20, 1978
ESPERANZA MALANYAON, complainant, vs. RUFINO L. GALANG, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Esperanza Malanyaon charged Deputy Sheriff of Manila Rufino L. Galang with gross negligence for failing to serve a writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur in Civil Case No. 6753. The writ was to enforce a judgment against defendant Tan Kim. Complainant provided two addresses for service: 334-336 Madrid St., San Nicolas, Binondo, and “Frank’s Watch & Jewelry Store” at 535 Plaza Goiti, Sta. Cruz, Manila. Respondent Galang returned the writ unsatisfied after a considerable delay, necessitating an alias writ.
In his defense, Galang claimed he attempted service at the Madrid Street address but found the house numbers changed. He later submitted a written explanation stating he also went to the Plaza Goiti address but was informed by a person there that Tan Kim did not work there. However, the investigating judge, Hon. Serafin Cuevas, found Galang’s testimony not credible. The judge noted that Galang’s original sheriff’s return made no mention of any attempt to serve the writ at the Plaza Goiti address, casting serious doubt on his claim. The judge concluded the explanation was an afterthought and found Galang lacking in the diligence required for his duties.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Rufino L. Galang is administratively liable for negligence in the performance of his official duties.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the investigating judge, concluding that Galang was negligent in performing his duties as defined by the Rules of Court. His failure to diligently pursue all provided addresses for service and his unsatisfactory, inconsistent explanations demonstrated a lack of the industry required of a court officer, which impeded the efficient administration of justice.
The Court recognized that as an appointee of the Mayor of Manila, the primary power to suspend, discipline, or remove him rests with the Mayor, following Bagatsing vs. Herrera & Pulido. However, because a sheriff performs functions integral to the administration of justice, he is considered an officer of the court and remains accountable to the judiciary for conduct that obstructs justice. To hold otherwise would undermine the courts’ role. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to one month’s basic salary on Galang. Furthermore, the Court immediately withdrew his authority to perform sheriff’s functions and directed executive judges to circularize this order to all courts in Manila, without prejudice to any separate administrative action the Mayor may take.