G.R. No. A.M. No. P-09-2716; October 11, 2011
Teresita Guerrero-Boylon, Complainant, vs. Aniceto Boyles, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cebu City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Teresita Guerrero-Boylon, representing her mother Asuncion T. Guerrero (plaintiff in a forcible entry case), charged respondent Sheriff Aniceto Boyles with neglect of duty for his delay and refusal to implement a writ of execution/demolition issued in July 2005. The writ, issued by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cebu City, was final and executory. The respondent was assigned to implement it, with assistance from other sheriffs, and a demolition schedule was arranged. The complainant alleged that the respondent failed to appear on the scheduled demolition dates in 2005, offering various excuses (e.g., being on another assignment, leave of absence, or the demolition crew being scared). By December 16, 2006, the writ remained unserved. At the intervention of the issuing judge, the respondent served a notice to vacate on one occupant, Manuel Tipgos, on January 18, 2007, and designated Tipgos to deliver notices to others, but these failed to reach the intended recipients. In his comment, the respondent denied the accusations, claiming he failed to implement the writ because the defendants were not occupying the property, the structures were on a different parcel of land, and Tipgos was not a party to the case. He also claimed attempts to serve notices were hindered by locked gates or no answers. The respondent later filed additional pleadings, stating he had filed a motion for clarification with the court and inhibited himself from the case, after which another sheriff successfully implemented the writ.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Aniceto Boyles is administratively liable for neglect of duty in failing to implement the writ of execution/demolition.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable for Gross Neglect of Duty. The Court found that the respondent’s duty to execute the writ was ministerial under Sections 10 and 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, requiring him to: (1) give notice and demand vacation of the property within three days; (2) enforce the writ by ousting occupants; (3) remove belongings or improvements upon court order; and (4) make periodic returns to the court. The respondent failed to perform these duties, as the writ remained unimplemented for almost two years, and he did not submit required returns. His excuses—such as property misidentification or occupants not being parties—were unjustified, as sheriffs must act promptly and seek court clarification if faced with ambiguous orders, not substitute their own judgment. The Court emphasized that sheriffs play a crucial role in the administration of justice, and their failure to execute writs undermines public confidence. The OCA had recommended a one-month suspension for simple neglect, but the Court characterized the offense as Gross Neglect of Duty due to the prolonged delay and failure to follow procedural rules. The penalty was modified to a six-month suspension without pay, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.