A.M. No. P-07-2388; June 30, 2008
Sannie V. Juario, complainant, vs. Norberto Labis, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 44, Initao, Misamis Oriental, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Sannie V. Juario was the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 2522 for slight physical injuries, where the accused, Laura Galono, was found guilty and ordered to pay him moral damages and attorney’s fees. After the accused applied for probation, complainant secured a writ of execution for the civil aspect. Respondent Sheriff Norberto Labis was tasked with its implementation. Complainant alleged that respondent demanded and received money to facilitate the execution. Respondent later informed complainant he could not attach the accused’s properties, claiming they were merely mortgaged, though he presented no proof. When complainant identified a parcel of land co-owned by the accused under a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA), respondent suggested a survey but later claimed attachment would be illegal.
In his Comment, respondent denied grave misconduct. He admitted receiving a smaller sum but asserted it was for legitimate execution expenses and properly accounted for. He explained that his attempts to levy on properties were unsuccessful because the tools found were exempt as essential implements, and the land’s CLOA coverage allegedly barred execution. He also raised the defense of forum shopping due to a prior similar complaint.

ISSUE

Whether respondent sheriff is administratively liable for grave misconduct and/or neglect of duty in the execution of the judgment.

RULING

The Court found respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty but dismissed the charge of grave misconduct. A sheriff’s duty in executing a writ is ministerial, requiring reasonable celerity and promptness without discretion. The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s finding that respondent was lackadaisical. While he served the writ, he failed to exercise due diligence in ascertaining whether the judgment debtor had other leviable properties to satisfy the obligation, rendering the judgment an empty victory for the complainant. This conduct fell short of the stringent standards for court personnel and constitutes simple neglect of duty—a failure to give attention to an expected task due to carelessness or indifference.
The prescribed penalty for a first offense is one month and one day suspension. However, to avoid disruption of public service, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) instead. Regarding grave misconduct, the charge was unsubstantiated. Respondent provided a reasonable explanation for receiving the money and satisfactorily demonstrated it was accounted for as legitimate execution expenses.