G.R. No. P-05-2003, December 6, 2010
German Agunday vs. Lemuel B. Velasco, Deputy Sheriff

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a civil case for recovery of ownership and possession. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) decided in favor of the plaintiffs, Lope Panti, Sr. and Francisca Panti, ordering the defendant, German Agunday (complainant), to vacate a portion of land and directing the plaintiffs to reconvey 13.3380 square meters to Agunday. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision, directing the plaintiffs to reconvey 13.38 square meters to Agunday. The complainant alleged that Deputy Sheriff Lemuel B. Velasco, along with other court personnel, implemented a writ of execution that varied the CA decision’s terms. He claimed that his house was demolished without proper notice, coordination, or a separate writ of demolition, and that the 13.38-square meter lot was never actually reconveyed to him, despite a certificate indicating otherwise.
The case underwent several referrals for investigation. Executive Judge Virginia G. Almonte, in her report, found Velasco remiss and negligent for failing to implement the writ of execution properly, specifically the reconveyance. She recommended a fine of ₱10,000. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concurred, recommending the dismissal of charges against other respondents but finding Velasco guilty of neglect of duty for failing to reconvey the property, thereby depriving the complainant of his rights for about eight years.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Lemuel B. Velasco is administratively liable for neglect of duty in the implementation of the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, respondent Sheriff Velasco is guilty of simple neglect of duty. The Court emphasized that a sheriff’s duty in executing judgments is ministerial and must be performed promptly and completely to ensure the proper administration of justice. Velasco failed to fully implement the writ of execution by not effecting the reconveyance of the 13.38-square meter lot to the complainant as mandated by the final CA decision. His inaction for approximately eight years constituted a disregard of his duty, arising from carelessness or indifference, which prejudiced the complainant and undermined public trust in the judiciary.
The Court defined simple neglect of duty as the failure to give due attention to an expected task. Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, it is a less grave offense punishable by suspension. Citing precedents, the Court noted that similar failures in implementing writs and submitting reports warrant suspension. However, considering practicality and to ensure continuity in office duties, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to one month’s salary instead of suspension. Velasco was warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The charges against the other respondents were dismissed for lack of merit.