A.M. No. P-08-2465 January 12, 2015
Conchita S. Bahala, Complainant, vs. Cirilo Duca, Sheriff III, Municipal Circuit Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Cagayan de Oro City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Conchita S. Bahala charged respondent Sheriff Cirilo Duca with grave abuse of discretion, gross misconduct, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in relation to his implementation of a writ of execution in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 98-July-817). Bahala alleged that after the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a judgment based on a compromise agreement, she paid the balance and remained on the premises for an agreed two-year extension. After the extension, she offered to sell the building she built on the property, but the plaintiff opted for execution. Sheriff Duca served the writ on August 1, 2002, and Bahala claimed he demanded and received ₱2,000.00 to delay implementation and received smaller amounts on multiple other occasions. Sheriff Duca served a notice of auction sale on February 21, 2003, stating ₱210,000.00 as rentals-in-arrears, which Bahala opposed as an erroneous computation. The RTC, in an order dated May 5, 2003, granted Bahala’s opposition, enjoined the sheriff from proceeding with the auction sale, and directed him to execute the parties’ agreement regarding ejectment and removal of structures. Despite this order, Sheriff Duca proceeded with the auction sale on May 13, 2003, awarded the building to the plaintiff, and on October 6, 2003, forcibly removed the occupants’ belongings, padlocked the building, and warned against re-entry. He also threatened Bahala when she began to voluntarily demolish the building. In his answer, Sheriff Duca denied demanding or receiving money, admitted meeting Bahala only a few times, and stated he did not file a return because implementation was not complete. He claimed the ₱210,000.00 was based on the plaintiff’s computation and that he received the RTC’s May 5 order only after the March 3, 2003 auction (the date mentioned in his answer differs from the May 13 date in the facts). He denied using force during the ejection.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Cirilo Duca is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Sheriff Cirilo Duca guilty of Simple Misconduct and Simple Neglect of Duty. The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) findings. Sheriff Duca committed Simple Neglect of Duty for failing to comply with Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which requires a sheriff to make and submit a return on the writ immediately upon satisfaction and, if full satisfaction cannot be made, to report to the court within 30 days of receipt of the writ and every 30 days thereafter until full satisfaction. Sheriff Duca served the writ multiple times starting August 1, 2002, but filed his return only on October 7, 2003, after the auction and ejection, thereby failing to keep the court apprised of the execution status. His excuse that his job was unfinished was insufficient. He also committed Simple Misconduct by irregularly relying on the plaintiff’s computation of rental arrears (₱210,000.00) for the notice of auction sale instead of performing his duty to compute the amount due himself. The charges for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act were dismissed for lack of merit. Considering these as less grave offenses and his first violation, the Court modified the recommended penalty and suspended him from office for three months without pay, with a stern warning.