G.R. No. P-06-2266 November 30, 2006
Encarnacion Flores, Complainant, vs. Romeo S. Gatcheco, Jr., Sheriff III, MTCC-Branch 1, Santiago City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Encarnacion Flores was the prevailing plaintiff in a sum of money case. A Writ of Execution was issued in her favor in June 2002. Respondent Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco, Jr. filed only one partial return in August 2002, stating the defendant could no longer be found. Complainant alleged that despite providing respondent with documents identifying the defendant’s property for levy, respondent failed to fully implement the writ. She also claimed respondent levied a tricycle but did not auction it and was often unavailable for meetings.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that, aside from the single partial return, respondent filed no further reports on the writ as required. The OCA also discovered respondent incurred habitual tardiness, being late at least ten times monthly for four consecutive months in 2003. Furthermore, respondent twice received but ignored directives from the OCA to file his comment on the administrative complaint.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco, Jr. is administratively liable for his actions and omissions in relation to the implementation of the Writ of Execution and his conduct as a court employee.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the OCA. Sheriffs have a primary duty to ensure the speedy and efficient service of court processes. Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court mandates the sheriff to make a report to the court every 30 days on the proceedings under a writ of execution until it is fully satisfied. Respondent’s failure to file any return beyond one partial report constituted inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, warranting suspension.
His repeated failure to comply with the OCA’s orders to file a comment constituted gross insubordination and serious misconduct. The Court has consistently held that refusal to obey its orders warrants disciplinary sanction. His habitual tardiness, a first offense, merits reprimand. Ordinarily, the gross insubordination and serious misconduct would justify dismissal. However, records showed respondent had already been dismissed from service in a separate administrative case in September 2005. Following precedent, a subsequent dismissal would be redundant. Therefore, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (₱21,000.00) in lieu of dismissal, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency.