G.R. No. P-06-2107. February 14, 2007
Cebu International Finance Corporation, represented by Ruben Almendras, Complainant, vs. Arthur R. Cabigon, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Cebu City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Cebu International Finance Corporation charged respondent Sheriff Arthur R. Cabigon with non-feasance and neglect of duty. The charge stemmed from respondent’s failure to fully implement a writ of possession issued in January 2004 in Civil Case No. CEB-22725. Assigned to implement the writ in September 2004, respondent only managed to open the gates of the subject property but not the house doors, despite a court-issued break-open order. He insisted on the presence of the property owners, ignoring advice from the Clerk of Court that the writ itself authorized the use of necessary means for implementation. Complainant’s pleas and a formal letter reminding him of potential administrative liability were unheeded. Furthermore, respondent was accused of double-dealing for allegedly permitting the defendants’ son to retrieve belongings from the property.
In his defense, respondent submitted a Sheriff’s Report detailing his actions, including serving a notice to vacate and partially executing the writ by breaking chains on the gate and a hut on January 19, 2005. He claimed logistical constraints and a lack of advanced expenses from the complainant hindered full implementation. He also cited a subsequent court order from a related case that initially caused him to seek clarification, delaying further action.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Arthur R. Cabigon is administratively liable for neglect of duty in the implementation of the writ of possession.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of neglect of duty. The legal logic centers on the mandatory and ministerial nature of a sheriff’s duty to execute court orders promptly and completely. A writ of possession commands the sheriff to place the winning party in possession of the property; failure to execute it fully without valid justification constitutes neglect. The Court emphasized that sheriffs, as frontline officers of the judiciary, must perform their duties with utmost responsibility and efficiency to maintain public trust in the judicial process.
Respondent’s excuses for the delay and partial implementation—such as awaiting the property owners’ presence and citing logistical issues—were deemed flimsy and indicative of a lack of diligence. His duty was to employ all lawful means to enforce the writ. The fact that he eventually performed partial acts did not absolve him from the initial and protracted failure to fully comply with his mandate. His prior administrative reprimand for a similar offense was an aggravating circumstance. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely, underscoring the high standard of conduct required of all court personnel.