A.M. No. 93-774. March 8, 1995. ATTY. GERARDO B. PADILLA, complainant, vs. PAISAL M. ARABIA, Deputy Sheriff IV, Branch 5, Iligan City, respondent.
FACTS

This administrative case involves Deputy Sheriff Paisal M. Arabia of the RTC, Branch 5, Iligan City. Complainant Atty. Gerardo B. Padilla, counsel for prevailing parties in three civil cases, alleged that in Civil Cases Nos. 1765 and 1769, respondent received P1,000.00 from the plaintiff for execution expenses, evidenced by a signed petty cash voucher. The writs were returned unsatisfied. Respondent’s return stated he gave the judgment debtors time to pay, causing the 60-day writs to expire, despite finding their real properties. Alias writs were also returned unsatisfied, with respondent claiming the plaintiff and counsel lost interest or failed to pay additional fees. In a third case, Civil Case No. 1920, respondent instructed a P500.00 deposit with the Clerk of Court for expenses, but the writ was again returned unsatisfied, with respondent giving an alibi about the deposit’s erroneous classification.
Respondent, in his Comment, defended his actions by citing humanitarian reasons for granting time to debtors and blaming the plaintiffs for non-payment of subsequent fees. He denied any obligation to liquidate the P1,000.00, arguing it was a voluntary offer not covered by the rules on sheriff’s expenses.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Paisal M. Arabia is administratively liable for his actions in relation to the execution of the writs and his handling of execution funds.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct and dereliction of duty. First, his failure to enforce the writs constituted gross neglect. A sheriff’s duty is to execute court orders with reasonable celerity and strict adherence to their mandate. He has no discretion to unilaterally grant judgment debtors a grace period, which directly caused the writs to expire unsatisfied. His subsequent failures to execute the alias writs further demonstrated neglect.
Second, and more gravely, respondent unlawfully received and appropriated execution expenses without proper accounting and in violation of procedural rules. His receipt of the P1,000.00 and his instruction for the P500.00 deposit, followed by his failure to enforce the writs and his flimsy justifications, constituted dishonesty and malicious obstruction of justice. The Court emphasized that execution is the most difficult phase of proceedings, and officers must act with dispatch; otherwise, a judgment becomes an empty victory.
Considering respondent had a prior administrative record where he was suspended and warned, a more severe penalty was warranted. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED respondent Paisal M. Arabia from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or corporation.