A.M. No. P-08-2430. July 14, 2008.
Atty. Leopoldo C. Lacambra, Jr., Complainant, vs. Christopher T. Perez, Deputy Sheriff, Branch 74, Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Leopoldo Lacambra, counsel for the plaintiffs in a civil case for damages, secured a final and executory decision. The court issued a Writ of Execution on March 23, 2004. The following day, respondent Deputy Sheriff Christopher Perez received Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000) from the plaintiffs for implementation expenses, evidenced by an acknowledgment receipt. Despite this, Perez failed to execute the writ for over three years, prompting a final demand from the complainant in August 2006 and the filing of this administrative complaint.
In his defense, Perez claimed the amount was insufficient for travel to Quezon City where the defendants resided. He alleged making attempts to serve the writ in April and June 2004, which were unsuccessful as the defendants were not found or due to time constraints. He stated he finally served a copy on one defendant in September 2006 but lost her contact details thereafter. He asserted he did not neglect his duty.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Christopher Perez is administratively liable for neglect of duty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is liable for Simple Neglect of Duty. The Court adopted the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. A sheriff’s duty to execute a writ is mandatory and ministerial. Under Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the officer must make a return to the court immediately after satisfaction of the judgment or, if not fully satisfied within thirty (30) days, report to the court and state the reasons. The officer must continue to make periodic reports every thirty (30) days until the writ is fully satisfied or expires.
Here, Perez’s non-implementation of the writ for over three years is undisputed. His alleged attempts were sporadic, with a gap of over two years between his June 2004 and September 2006 efforts. This delay negates his claim of having exerted best efforts. Crucially, Perez failed to submit the required periodic reports to the court after June 14, 2004. His excuses—insufficient funds, distance, and lost contact—are unacceptable. Sheriffs, as vital agents in the administration of justice, must perform their duties with due care and utmost diligence to ensure court decisions are not rendered illusory. His failure to execute the writ promptly and to file regular reports constitutes neglect of duty. The Court suspended him for two months without pay.