A.M. No. P-07-2307. March 14, 2008
NECENIO GILLANA, Complainant, vs. BALBINO B. GERMINAL, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Cadiz City, Negros Occidental, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Necenio Gillana, as Judicial Administrator of an intestate estate, charged respondent Sheriff Balbino Germinal with failure to implement a writ of demolition and failure to liquidate received funds. The MTCC of Sagay City issued writs of demolition in two civil cases, which were forwarded to respondent for implementation. Complainant averred that respondent asked for and received ₱10,000.00 to demolish five specific structures but only demolished one, failing to implement the writ against the four others and failing to liquidate the amount.
In his Comment, respondent explained he did not proceed with the demolition of the four structures because, upon arriving at the site, he found the occupancy and possession were uncertain. The structures were claimed by persons not named as defendants in the case, who presented Declarations of Real Property. Respondent filed a Sheriff’s Partial Return of Service to inform the court and await further instructions. He contended the money was unexpectedly given for police and demolition team expenses, not his own, and he believed in good faith that liquidation was not required, though he later submitted one.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Balbino Germinal is administratively liable for his actions concerning the implementation of the writ of demolition and the handling of the monetary advance.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent NOT liable for failure to implement the writ but GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty and Simple Misconduct for procedural lapses. On the failure to implement, the Court ruled that sheriffs must exercise prudence and caution. They cannot arbitrarily demolish properties claimed by persons not parties to the case without evidence linking those claimants to the named defendants. Respondent acted correctly by filing a Partial Return to inform the court of the conflicting claims and awaiting clarification, especially since the underlying decision was from 1994 and possession issues had arisen by 2002.
However, respondent was administratively liable. He was guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty for failing to make a timely and complete return of the writ as mandated by Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. He was also guilty of Simple Misconduct for failing to properly liquidate the ₱10,000.00 received from the complainant. Sheriffs are required to render a full and accurate account of all money received in their official capacity. His failure to do so promptly, regardless of his belief about its purpose, constituted misconduct. Considering it was his first offense, the Court modified the investigating judge’s recommendation and imposed a penalty of REPRIMAND for Simple Neglect of Duty and a FINE of ₱5,000.00 for Simple Misconduct, with a stern warning.