A.M. No. P-10-2789; July 31, 2013
Development Bank of the Philippines, represented by Atty. Benilda A. Tejada, Complainant, vs. Damvin V. Famero, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, Respondent.
FACTS
The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Damvin V. Famero for Gross Neglect of Duty and Gross Misconduct. The complaint arose from Famero’s alleged failure to implement a Writ of Execution issued in 2005 in a forcible entry case, where the RTC ordered a defendant association to vacate and deliver possession of a parcel of land to DBP. Despite repeated demands, the writ remained unimplemented nearly four years later, preventing DBP from taking possession of its property.
In his defense, Sheriff Famero claimed he made several attempts to enforce the writ, citing a return of service. He argued that his efforts were hindered by the occupants’ resistance, including death threats from an insurgent group, and by pending motions filed by the defendants. He also contended that a writ of demolition was necessary to remove structures, which he could not do without a special court order. An investigation by the Executive Judge found that Famero did not totally ignore the writ but had failed to successfully evict the occupants.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Damvin V. Famero is administratively liable for his failure to fully implement the Writ of Execution.
RULING
Yes, but the charge is reduced from Gross Neglect to Simple Neglect of Duty. The Court emphasized that a sheriff’s duty to execute a writ is ministerial and must be pursued with reasonable diligence and promptness. Famero’s partial attempts at service, documented by returns, negated a finding of gross neglect, which implies a conscious indifference to duty. However, his failure to accomplish the eviction over an extended period, despite the writ’s clear mandate, constituted simple neglect—a failure to give due attention to an expected task.
In determining the penalty, the Court considered mitigating circumstances: Famero’s over 24 years of unblemished service, the real resistance and threats from occupants, his correct understanding that demolition required a further court order, and the fact that this was his first offense. To avoid disrupting court operations with a suspension, the Court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (₱2,000.00) with a stern warning. The ruling balances accountability with fairness, recognizing the practical challenges sheriffs face while upholding the imperative for diligent duty performance.
