AM P 02 1605; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-02-1605. February 4, 2008.
NOEL VITUG, complainant, vs. PERLITO G. DIMAGIBA, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Malolos, Bulacan, respondent.
FACTS
Noel Vitug filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Perlito G. Dimagiba for dereliction of duty and abuse of authority concerning Civil Case No. 173-M-97. The complaint specifically alleged that Dimagiba failed to enforce and implement the writ of execution issued by the trial court in favor of Vitug. Furthermore, he failed to submit the required written report on the service of notices of garnishment to banks and the periodic reports every thirty days as mandated by Sections 9(c) and 14, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The case was referred for investigation to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan. The investigating judge found merit in the complaint and recommended that respondent be reprimanded for dereliction of duty. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), however, reviewed the case and found the recommended penalty insufficient.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Perlito G. Dimagiba is administratively liable for his failure to submit the required reports on the implementation of the writ of execution.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the OCA. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory nature of a sheriff’s duties under the Rules of Court. Sections 9(c) and 14 of Rule 39 impose a clear ministerial duty upon the sheriff to make a return and submit periodic reports to the court regarding the implementation of a writ of execution. These requirements are not discretionary; they are essential for the court to monitor the progress of execution and ensure the proper administration of justice.
Respondent’s failure to comply with these specific procedural rules constitutes simple neglect of duty. Neglect of duty is the failure to perform an act required by one’s office or law. By omitting to file the necessary reports, respondent neglected a fundamental duty inherent in his position as a sheriff. The Court modified the initial recommended penalty, imposing a one-month suspension without pay, which is commensurate with the offense under prevailing civil service rules. This penalty serves the dual purpose of holding the respondent accountable for his lapse and upholding the strict standards required of court personnel in the performance of their official functions.