A.M. No. P-01-1483. September 20, 2001. EDNA FE F. AQUINO, complainant, vs. ISABELO LAVADIA, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Cabagan, Isabela, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Edna Fe F. Aquino filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Isabelo Lavadia for inefficiency and gross neglect of duty. The complaint stemmed from Lavadia’s failure to implement multiple writs of execution issued as far back as 1995 in several civil cases for collection of sums of money where Aquino was the prevailing party. Despite numerous written requests and verbal follow-ups from the complainant and her counsel over several years, including a specific 1998 request for a sheriff’s report as mandated by the Rules of Court, respondent sheriff took no action and offered no replies.
In his Comment, respondent Lavadia admitted the non-execution of the subject writs. He did not deny the allegations but offered an explanation, attributing the failure to his heavy workload as the only sheriff in a single-sala Regional Trial Court branch. He claimed the non-execution was due to “inadvertence” given the volume of writs and processes from his own court and from the various lower courts within its jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Isabelo Lavadia is administratively liable for inefficiency and gross neglect of duty for his failure to implement the writs of execution.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) evaluation and recommendation meritorious. The duty of a sheriff to implement a writ of execution is ministerial, not discretionary. Upon receipt of a writ, the sheriff must proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to enforce it according to its terms. Respondent’s admission of non-execution over a period exceeding five years, despite repeated demands, constitutes a patent failure to perform this essential duty.
The Court rejected respondent’s justification of a heavy workload as unacceptable. Such a circumstance does not exonerate him from liability for gross neglect. The protracted delay of several years rendered the court’s judgments ineffectual, prejudicing the prevailing party who is entitled to the fruits of the verdict. This inefficiency undermines public trust in the entire judiciary. While the OCA recommended a one-month suspension, the Court modified the penalty to a fine equivalent to one month’s salary. This was to ensure respondent remains in office to finally execute the pending writs and to prevent him from using a suspension as a further excuse for inaction. He was also directed to implement the writs immediately and warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.