AM P 04 1928; (December, 2004) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-04-1928; December 17, 2004
Teodoro M. Garcia, complainant, vs. Ruel Magcalas, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Teodoro M. Garcia was the prevailing plaintiff in an ejectment case. After the decision became final and executory, the Municipal Trial Court issued a writ of execution and, subsequently, an Alias Writ of Demolition addressed to respondent Sheriff Ruel Magcalas on December 15, 2003. Judge Nicolas V. Fadul, Jr., who had taken over the case, also granted complainant’s Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Require Sheriff Magcalas to Implement the Alias Writ of Demolition Without Delay in an Order dated March 29, 2004.
Despite the clear directive from Judge Fadul, respondent sheriff failed to implement the Alias Writ of Demolition. He justified his inaction by citing the pendency of a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the defendants-appellants. This prompted the complainant to file the present administrative complaint for dereliction of duty against the sheriff.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Ruel Magcalas is administratively liable for dereliction of duty for his failure to implement the Alias Writ of Demolition and the subsequent court order.
RULING
Yes, respondent sheriff is guilty of dereliction of duty. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. The Court emphasized that the execution phase is the most difficult part of any proceeding, and a decision becomes an empty victory without enforcement. Sheriffs play an indispensable role in the administration of justice, tasked with serving court writs and executing processes with due care and utmost diligence. Their duty in enforcing writs of execution is ministerial, not discretionary.
In this case, respondent sheriff not only failed to execute the alias writ but also ignored a specific court order to implement it without delay. His excuse—the pendency of a motion for reconsideration—was untenable. In the absence of a restraining order issued by a superior court, a sheriff must act with considerable dispatch to enforce a final and executory judgment. By failing to do so, respondent undermined the judicial process and violated his sworn duty to uphold the law with integrity and efficiency. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.