A.M. No. P-12-3028, April 11, 2012
Attys. Ricardo D. Gonzales & Ernesto D. Rosales vs. Arthur G. Calo, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 5, Butuan City

FACTS

Complainants, counsels for Rural Bank of Cabadbaran, charged respondent Sheriff Arthur G. Calo with grave misconduct, neglect of duty, and dishonesty concerning a writ of possession. The writ commanded the sheriff to immediately place the bank in possession of a property. Complainants alleged that respondent failed to coordinate with them, ignored their letters requesting an estimate of implementation expenses, and delayed filing his Sheriff’s Report. The report, dated February 18, 2011, was filed only on March 4, 2011, and indicated that respondent had unilaterally granted the occupants a three-month extension to vacate. When complainants moved for his inhibition, respondent proceeded to implement the writ on April 25, 2011, without waiting for the court’s resolution. After implementation, he returned to the bank and demanded and received ₱1,000 from the bank manager for alleged expenses.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Arthur G. Calo is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of possession.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming a court employee. The Supreme Court emphasized that a sheriff’s duty in executing a writ is purely ministerial; he must implement it promptly and strictly in accordance with its mandate. Respondent’s act of granting a three-month extension to the occupants was a clear usurpation of a judicial function, as he had no authority to modify the court’s order for immediate possession. His failure to timely submit the required sheriff’s report and to properly serve a copy to complainants constituted neglect of duty. Furthermore, his act of directly demanding and receiving ₱1,000 from the bank manager violated Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which requires that sheriff’s expenses be estimated, approved by the court, and paid to the clerk of court, not solicited directly from a party. While the Court found the charge of extortion not fully substantiated, the improper solicitation and receipt of money, coupled with his arrogant and uncoordinated conduct, amounted to conduct grossly unbecoming of a court officer. Considering his compulsory retirement, the Court imposed a fine of ₱20,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.