A.M. No. P-05-2035. July 31, 2006. ATTY. ALEXANDER L. BANSIL, complainant, vs. NELSON DE LEON, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 8, Manila, respondent.
FACTS

This administrative case arose from the execution proceedings in an ejectment case. After the MeTC granted execution pending appeal, respondent Sheriff served the necessary notices and levied on personal properties. Complainant, a defendant, filed a third-party claim on behalf of consignors, but the properties were not released. Respondent issued a Notice of Sale for December 3, 1999. Complainant alleged no auction occurred that day, supported by an affidavit, and noted respondent filed no report on the sale. The RTC, four years later in 2003, even ordered respondent to make his returns to the MeTC. Complainant asserted respondent only submitted a “Sheriff’s Partial Return” nearly five years post-sale, which was unofficial and contained discrepancies.
In his Comment, respondent claimed he postponed the December 1999 auction due to a motion and rescheduled it for February 1, 2000, which proceeded with the plaintiff as highest bidder. He admitted failing to submit periodic reports, justifying it with his “honest belief” the case would be settled amicably and the plaintiff only wanted to repossess the premises. He apologized and promised not to repeat the error.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff is administratively liable for his conduct in the execution proceedings.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for simple neglect of duty. The Court emphasized that under Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, it is mandatory for a sheriff to make a return of the writ of execution to the issuing court. If the judgment is not fully satisfied within thirty days, the officer must report to the court and state the reasons, and must continue to make a report every thirty days until the judgment is satisfied or the writ expires. Respondent’s failure to submit any report for approximately four to five years constitutes a clear violation of this mandatory duty.
His proffered excuse—an “honest belief” in an amicable settlement—is unacceptable. His years of service as a sheriff should have made him acutely aware of this non-discretionary procedural requirement. This failure signifies a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference, which defines simple neglect of duty. As a less grave offense under the Civil Service rules, it is punishable by suspension. The Court stressed that sheriffs, as frontline officers of the court, must discharge their duties with great care and diligence to maintain public trust in the judiciary. Their conduct directly reflects on the court’s integrity. Hence, respondent Nelson de Leon is found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and is SUSPENDED for One (1) Month and One (1) Day, with a stern warning.