AM P 00 1437; (February, 2001) (Digest)
Adm. Matter No. P-00-1437. February 6, 2001. Atty. Julian B. San Juan, Jr. vs. Ariel S. Sangalang, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 114, Pasay City.
FACTS
Complainant Atty. Julian B. San Juan, Jr., counsel for the plaintiff in a civil case, charged respondent Sheriff Ariel S. Sangalang with neglect of duty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the service. The trial court issued a writ of execution on September 29, 1997. Complainant alleged that despite repeated follow-ups, respondent failed to implement the writ for over a year, giving excuses about being preoccupied. On December 4, 1998, respondent, accompanied by the complainant’s team, attempted execution at the judgment debtor’s residence but left without levying on available personal properties, including a Mitsubishi Station Wagon.
Respondent subsequently informed complainant that the writ could not be implemented because the vehicle was allegedly sold to a third party. Complainant further alleged that respondent demanded an advance payment of P10,000 as a sheriff’s fee to proceed with the execution, which complainant refused. Respondent ultimately stated he could no longer implement the writ as his identity was already known to the defendants. This compelled complainant to file a motion for the appointment of a special sheriff.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Ariel S. Sangalang is administratively liable for the charges against him.
RULING
Yes, but only for neglect of duty. The Court found respondent guilty of unreasonable delay in the execution of the writ. A sheriff must execute judgments with reasonable dispatch, as any delay negates the role of the judiciary in ensuring the speedy administration of justice. Respondent took more than a year to make an initial attempt at execution and failed to submit the periodic returns on his proceedings as mandated by the rules. His explanation for the failed attempt—being intimidated by the defendants and their relatives—is unacceptable. As a frontline officer of the court, a sheriff must uphold the authority of the judiciary and cannot allow himself to be cowed by mere threats, as such cowardice diminishes public faith in the legal system.
However, the charge of demanding a P10,000 advance fee was not substantiated by credible evidence. The quantum of proof in administrative cases is substantial evidence. The record shows respondent even advanced the official sheriff’s fees himself, as evidenced by official receipts. Thus, this particular allegation remains a bare accusation. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for neglect of duty with a warning for future offenses.