AM P 05 1999; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-05-1999. February 22, 2008
ANGELES A. VELASCO, complainant, vs. ATTY. PROSPERO V. TABLIZO, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant, counsel of record in two civil cases, secured favorable final judgments for his clients. In Civil Case No. 489, a writ of execution was issued on May 25, 1999, commanding respondent, as Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff, to eject the defendant, demand monetary payments, and levy on properties if necessary. Respondent received the writ on July 5, 1999, but refused to implement it. In Civil Case No. 466, a similar writ was issued on February 24, 1999, and received by respondent on February 26, 1999, which he likewise refused to implement.
An administrative complaint was filed against respondent for gross neglect of duty and misconduct. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the complaint to respondent for comment on multiple occasions, but he repeatedly failed to file any. The OCA subsequently recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be fined.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Prospero V. Tablizo is administratively liable for his failure to implement the writs of execution.
RULING
Yes, respondent is liable for gross neglect of duty and refusal to perform official duty. As Clerk of Court, respondent concurrently served as an Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff with the mandatory and ministerial duty to implement writs of execution promptly and strictly according to their terms. The Court emphasized that the implementation of writs is not discretionary; sheriffs must enforce them to the letter to ensure the finality of judgments is not rendered illusory.
Respondent’s unjustified refusal to act on the lawful writs, coupled with his repeated failure to comply with directives from the OCA and the Court to file his comment, constituted gross neglect and insubordination. His inaction disregarded explicit procedures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court governing the execution of judgments. Considering his position and the prejudice caused to the execution of final judgments, the Court found the OCA’s recommended penalty of a P20,000 fine insufficient. Instead, the Court imposed a fine of P40,000 and directed a further investigation into other allegations in the complaint. The ruling underscores that court officers who abdicate their ministerial duties undermine the administration of justice.