AM P 05 1978; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. P-05-1978. March 31, 2005
Atty. Florante S. Legaspi, Complainant, vs. Alejandro L. Tobillo, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant, counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. R-4240, charged respondent Sheriff Alejandro Tobillo with Grave Neglect of Duty for refusing to implement a writ of possession. The case originated from a judgment for a sum of money. A parcel of land belonging to the judgment debtors was levied upon, sold at public auction to the plaintiffs, and, after the redemption period lapsed, a final deed of sale and a new title were issued in the plaintiffs’ favor. The trial court subsequently issued a writ of possession.
Respondent sheriff received the writ but failed to fully execute it. His return stated that he served copies on the judgment debtor and an intervenor, Milagros Pascual, who claimed to have purchased the property. He reported that he went to the property with Pascual and spoke to the occupant, Normelita Marasigan, but took no further action to physically place the plaintiffs in possession. Instead, he informed the court that the occupant refused to vacate and requested instructions, effectively suspending the implementation of the writ on his own authority.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Alejandro Tobillo is administratively liable for Gross Neglect of Duty for his failure to fully implement the writ of possession.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty. The Supreme Court emphasized that a writ of possession is a ministerial duty. Upon its issuance, it is the sheriff’s mandatory and non-discretionary obligation to place the winning bidder in possession of the property. The law provides a clear procedure: if the defendant or any person refuses to vacate, the sheriff must oust them and deliver possession.
The Court found that respondent neglected this duty. By merely serving copies and then reporting the occupant’s refusal without taking affirmative steps to eject her, he unjustifiably suspended the writ’s execution. His duty was to enforce the court order, not to await further directives. His actions constituted a dereliction of duty that undermined the judicial process. Considering it was his first offense and his relative newness to the position, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) instead of a harsher penalty. He was also directed to implement the writ immediately upon receipt of the decision.