G.R. No. A.M. No. P-09-2715. June 13, 2011.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. EFREN E. TOLOSA, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Sorsogon City, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a complaint (A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1383-RTJ) against Judge Jose L. Madrid and Sheriff Ariosto Letada, which was dismissed. However, the Court, via a September 15, 2003 Resolution, directed the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to act on its finding that respondent Efren E. Tolosa, Sheriff IV, violated Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The violation pertained to his failure to immediately turn over to the Clerk of Court checks he received while implementing a Writ of Execution in Civil Case No. 5327 (“Loreto Brondial, et al. v. Vicente Go, et al.”). The writ, issued on February 29, 2000, was furnished to Tolosa on March 31, 2000, to enforce a final CA decision awarding damages to the plaintiffs. Tolosa submitted a Sheriff’s Partial Return only on July 17, 2000, after a query from a complainant’s relative. He reported receiving postdated checks totaling ₱118,000 from the defendant on June 14, 2000, as partial satisfaction. He did not turn over the checks immediately but instead waited for instructions from the plaintiffs’ counsel. He eventually encashed matured checks worth ₱60,000 and deposited this amount, along with the remaining checks, with the Branch Clerk of Court on October 10, 2000. In his explanations, Tolosa claimed the checks were received conditionally, that the plaintiffs’ counsel had withdrawn the amounts, and that he was confused due to multiple claimants.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Efren E. Tolosa is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the Writ of Execution.

RULING

Yes, respondent Sheriff Efren E. Tolosa is administratively liable. The Court found him guilty of two offenses: (1) failure to make a timely return of the writ of execution as mandated by Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court; and (2) failure to immediately turn over the money/checks received in the implementation of the writ to the court as required by Section 9, Rule 39.
The duty to make a return is ministerial and must be done immediately after partial or full satisfaction, or within 30 days if full satisfaction is not possible, with periodic reports every 30 days thereafter. Tolosa’s delay of over three months (from March 31 to July 17, 2000) was unjustified; his reasons—waiting for the plaintiffs’ decision and dealing with multiple heirs—were flimsy and did not excuse his mandatory duty to report to the court.
Furthermore, his duty to turn over funds on the same day of receipt is also ministerial and mandatory. His failure to do so constituted neglect of duty. The Court emphasized that sheriffs must act with promptness and circumspection, as they play a crucial role in the administration of justice. Tolosa’s actions exhibited a lack of diligence and a disregard for procedural rules designed to ensure the proper and speedy execution of judgments.
Considering his length of service and the absence of previous offenses, the Court modified the OCA’s recommendation. Respondent Efren E. Tolosa was found guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and was FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00), with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.