G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-07-2402; October 15, 2008 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2591-P)
Case Parties: ATTY. REDENTOR S. VIAJE, complainant, vs. ROLANDO A. DIZON, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Redentor S. Viaje, counsel for the plaintiff in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 1946), filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Rolando A. Dizon for dishonesty and grave misconduct. The complaint alleged that after obtaining a favorable judgment, Viaje gave respondent P3,000.00 for estimated expenses to implement the writ of execution. Respondent allegedly demanded and received another P3,000.00 from the plaintiff’s daughter for personal service of the writ, and later demanded P5,000.00 for expenses to confiscate rice from the contested land. However, respondent allegedly refused to receive the P5,000.00 just before the harvest and failed to implement the writ promptly, issuing only one Sheriff’s Return on March 16, 2007. In his Comment, respondent denied receiving any money. He claimed he told the plaintiff’s representative he would prepare a court-approved estimate of expenses, but she became suspicious and did not return. He also stated he requested the representative’s presence during implementation, but she never appeared. The case was referred for investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Rolando A. Dizon is administratively liable for the charges of dishonesty and grave misconduct, or for any other offense related to his duties in implementing the writ of execution.

RULING

The Court found respondent GUILTY of SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY but DISMISSED the charges for Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty for lack of merit. The dismissal of the serious charges was proper because complainant Viaje failed to attend the investigation hearings despite notice, thus failing to substantiate his allegations with substantial evidence. In the absence of contrary evidence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevails.
However, respondent was faulted for two procedural lapses constituting Simple Neglect of Duty:
1. He failed to follow the procedure under Section 10(l), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court by not preparing and submitting to the court for approval a statement of estimated expenses for implementing the writ. He merely suggested this course to the plaintiff’s representative instead of following it as an obligation.
2. He failed to make a periodic return on the implementation of the writ every thirty (30) days as required by Section 14, Rule 39. He received the writ on October 6, 2006, but made his first and only return on March 16, 2007.
For Simple Neglect of Duty, respondent Sheriff Rolando A. Dizon was SUSPENDED without pay for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day, effective immediately upon receipt of the decision. The Court emphasized the significant role of sheriffs in the administration of justice and the need for a high degree of professionalism.