A.M. No. P-04-1878 ; August 31, 2004
DALTON SANDOVAL, complainant, vs. ALFONSO H. IGNACIO, JR., respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Dalton Sandoval was a substitute plaintiff in an ejectment case where a final judgment was rendered in his favor. A Writ of Execution was issued on July 7, 1995. Respondent Sheriff Alfonso H. Ignacio, Jr., assigned to implement the writ, wrote a letter to Sandoval’s counsel requesting money for execution expenses. Sandoval gave Ignacio P1,200.00, for which the sheriff issued only an undated “Temporary Receipt.” The writ was served on February 9, 1996, but the judgment was not fully satisfied. Sandoval heard nothing further until an inquiry in June 2002 revealed that Ignacio had not filed a proper return of service. A Sheriff Return was eventually filed on June 25, 2002, explaining non-satisfaction due to a possible agreement between the parties, which Sandoval alleged evidenced an “unholy alliance” with the defendants’ counsel.
In his defense, Ignacio claimed he had handwritten a return on the writ itself on February 9, 1996, and that the writ had expired after 60 days. He admitted requesting money but was silent on whether he received it, and denied any collusion. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially found he complied with service rules but was guilty of misfeasance for violating the procedure for implementing writs. Upon referral, the Executive Judge found Ignacio negligent for the extremely delayed filing of his return and for improperly soliciting and receiving the P1,200.00 without issuing an official receipt, depositing it with the clerk of court, or liquidating the amount.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Alfonso H. Ignacio, Jr. is administratively liable for his actions in relation to the implementation of the Writ of Execution and his handling of execution expenses.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dereliction of Duty, warranting dismissal from service. The Court found that Ignacio violated fundamental rules governing sheriffs. First, he failed to file a proper and timely return of the writ as required by Section 11, Rule 39 of the old Rules of Court. Whether his return was handwritten on the writ in 1996 or formally filed only in 2002, the delay was inordinate and constituted a neglect of duty that prejudiced the complainant’s right to execution.
Second, and more egregiously, Ignacio violated Section 9, Rule 141 (old Rules) and relevant auditing rules by directly requesting and receiving P1,200.00 from the complainant without following the proper procedure. The law mandates that sheriffs must obtain court-approved estimates for expenses, require the payment to be made to the clerk of court, and issue official receipts. Ignacio’s act of issuing only a “Temporary Receipt” and failing to account for or liquidate the funds constitutes dishonesty and gross misconduct. Such actions erode public trust in the administration of justice. Given the seriousness of these infractions, which involve failure in a basic duty and improper monetary dealings, the penalty of dismissal is appropriate. The Court thus ordered his dismissal with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and disqualification from reemployment in any government agency.