G.R. No. P-01-1495 August 9, 2001
Esmeraldo D. Visitacion, Jr., complainant, vs. Gredam P. Ediza, Sheriff IV, respondent.

FACTS

On May 19, 1998, the Municipal Trial Court of Mabinay, Negros Oriental, issued a writ of execution in a criminal case for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law, directing the defendant to restore possession of a lot to complainant Esmeraldo D. Visitacion, Jr. The writ was assigned to respondent Deputy Sheriff Gredam P. Ediza for implementation. Respondent directly requested and received from complainant the amount of P3,000.00 for estimated expenses, with only a P2,400.00 portion covered by a handwritten receipt. Almost three months later, no report or return on the writ had been filed with the court, prompting complainant to file an administrative complaint for dereliction of duty on August 24, 1998.
In his answer, respondent attached a return of service dated August 10, 1998, which was the 60th day from his receipt of the writ, but the court stamped it as received only on August 25, 1998. Respondent attributed the delay to the distance between his office and the court. The return indicated that the writ was served on the defendant on June 29, 1998, but the defendant refused acknowledgment and was given 30 days to comply, yet he remained in possession as of the report date.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Gredam P. Ediza is administratively liable for dereliction of duty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of dereliction of duty. The Court found multiple procedural violations. First, respondent disregarded the proper procedure for sheriff’s expenses under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court. He directly solicited and received funds from the complainant without prior court approval and failed to liquidate the amount received, a mandatory requirement. Second, respondent failed to submit a timely return of service. Under Section 14, Rule 39, a sheriff must report to the court within 30 days if a judgment cannot be fully satisfied, and make periodic reports every 30 days thereafter. Respondent erroneously relied on an old 60-day rule and his explanation for the 15-day mailing delay between Dumaguete and Mabinay (a mere 60-kilometer distance) was unconvincing and indicative of negligence.
The Court emphasized that sheriffs, as frontline officers of the court, must perform their duties with utmost diligence, professionalism, and adherence to legal procedures to maintain public trust in the judiciary. Their failure to execute writs promptly and properly renders court decisions inutile and undermines the administration of justice. While the Court noted an absence of intent to misappropriate funds, which served as a mitigating circumstance, respondent’s overall conduct demonstrated a disregard for proper rules. Consequently, respondent was fined Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) for dereliction of duty.