AM P 02 1544; (June, 2003) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-02-1544. June 26, 2003. ERNESTO LUMANTA, Complainant, vs. WILFREDO M. TUPAS, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Ernesto Lumanta, a Credit and Collection Manager, accompanied respondent Sheriff Wilfredo M. Tupas to implement a writ of attachment against spouses de Vera. Instead of executing the writ, respondent negotiated an amicable settlement without the complainant’s consent. He personally received cash of P5,000 and a post-dated check for P46,737.50 payable to himself from the debtors.
Despite the check’s maturity date and subsequent demands, respondent failed for five months to deliver the amounts or their proceeds to the complainant. He also ignored a formal demand letter and failed to file a mandatory Sheriff’s Return on the writ. When administratively charged, respondent ignored two directives from the Executive Judge to file his comment, constituting an implied admission of the allegations.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Wilfredo M. Tupas is administratively liable for his actions in relation to the implementation of the writ of attachment.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. A sheriff’s duty in executing a writ is purely ministerial; he must implement it strictly according to its terms. By unilaterally negotiating a settlement and amending the court’s order, respondent committed grave misconduct. His act of receiving substantial cash and a check payable to himself was a gross violation. While sheriffs may collect estimated expenses for implementation under Rule 141, the process requires court approval, deposit with the clerk of court, and proper liquidation. Respondent’s direct receipt of P5,000, outside this procedure and without immediate liquidation, constituted dishonesty. His failure to file a Sheriff’s Return and his neglect in remitting the collected amounts for months demonstrated a lack of diligence and zeal, which is conduct prejudicial to the service. His refusal to answer the charges further bolstered the case against him. As a court officer, respondent failed to uphold the high standards required in the administration of justice. The penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification from government service is imposed.