G.R. No. P-04-1872. January 31, 2006
MANUEL V. MENDOZA, Complainant, vs. ANGEL L. DORONI, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City, Respondent.

FACTS

The complainant, Manuel V. Mendoza, prevailed in a forcible entry case in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), which issued a writ of execution to restore his possession. The MeTC sheriff enforced this writ. However, the defendants appealed, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC decision, dismissing the complaint but ordering defendants to pay financial assistance to certain structure owners. The RTC later granted the defendants’ motion for execution and issued a corresponding writ directed to the respondent sheriff, Angel L. Doroni.
Respondent sheriff enforced the RTC writ on November 11, 2003, accompanied by police officers, and issued a Certificate of Turn-Over of the property. Complainant Mendoza filed an administrative complaint, alleging respondent was guilty of misconduct and gross negligence for: (1) enforcing the writ without the prior three-day notice to vacate required by Section 10(c), Rule 39; (2) ejecting complainant and delivering possession to a non-party (Genuino Ice Co.) despite the RTC decision’s dispositive portion not expressly ordering ejectment; (3) delivering ice-making machines not involved in the case; and (4) failing to execute the monetary judgment for the structure owners.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Angel L. Doroni is administratively liable for misconduct and gross negligence in implementing the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of misconduct and simple neglect of duty. The core of his liability stems from his failure to adhere to the mandatory procedure under Section 10(c), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which requires a sheriff to demand that the person against whom a judgment for restitution of real property is rendered peaceably vacate the premises within three working days before ousting them. Respondent admitted he did not issue this prior demand. His defense—that the RTC decision’s dispositive portion did not explicitly order ejectment and thus the rule did not apply—is untenable. The RTC order granting the writ of execution effectively directed the restoration of possession to the defendants-appellants, making the judgment one for restitution of property to which Section 10(c) applies. A sheriff’s duty is purely ministerial; he must execute orders strictly in accordance with the law and the writ’s directives. His failure to follow the clear procedural rule constitutes misconduct.
Furthermore, the Court found him liable for simple neglect of duty for failing to execute the monetary award in favor of the four structure owners. Sheriffs have a mandatory duty to implement all aspects of a writ. His claim that he could not locate the judgment creditors was insufficient; he should have exerted earnest efforts and reported any difficulty to the court for instructions. His selective execution of the writ undermined the integrity of the judicial process. The Court imposed a fine of P10,000 with a stern warning.