G.R. No. P-00-1361. July 29, 2005.
Jeanifer Buenviaje and Blesilda Recuenco, Complainants, vs. Arturo Anatalio, Deputy Sheriff of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of San Juan, Metro Manila, Branch 58, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants accused Deputy Sheriff Arturo Anatalio of Gross Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming an Officer of the Court. They alleged that on June 30, 1997, respondent, with several policemen, forcibly ejected them from their house by virtue of a Writ of Execution issued by the MTC in an ejectment case. Complainants contended the execution was improper as the case was already pending on appeal before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), and the writ had allegedly expired on June 23, 1997. They further claimed respondent stated he was paid by the plaintiffs to execute the writ, and that some of their personal properties were lost or destroyed during the implementation.
In his defense, respondent asserted he enforced the writ dated April 21, 1997, according to procedure. He issued notices and collected partial payments from complainants, who requested and were granted two 30-day extensions to vacate. He implemented the writ on June 30, 1997, upon the plaintiffs’ instruction after complainants failed to honor their commitments. Respondent maintained the writ was legally issued prior to the transmittal of records on appeal and that no supersedeas bond was filed by complainants. He denied receiving improper payments and claimed no properties were lost, as the process was overseen by policemen.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Arturo Anatalio is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the Writ of Execution.

RULING

Yes, but only for Simple Neglect of Duty. The Supreme Court modified the findings, absolving respondent of gross misconduct but holding him liable for failing to implement the writ within the mandated period. The Court clarified that the execution was valid. Under Rule 39, Section 11 of the Rules of Court then prevailing, a writ of execution must be implemented within 60 days from its receipt. Respondent received the writ on April 23, 1997, making the deadline June 22, 1997. His implementation on June 30, 1997, was a seven-day delay. The duty to execute a writ is ministerial, and the extensions granted to complainants did not justify the delay or extend the statutory period. However, the Court found no evidence to support the serious charges of gross misconduct, graft, or property loss. The allegation that the MTC lost jurisdiction due to the appeal was incorrect, as immediate execution in ejectment cases is allowed unless a supersedeas bond is filed, which complainants did not do. Considering the delay was not attended by bad faith or malice, and no substantial damage was proven, the appropriate penalty is a reprimand for simple neglect of duty.