A.M. No. P-12-3029, August 15, 2012
Astorga and Repol Law Offices, represented by Atty. Arnold B. Lugares, Complainant, vs. Leodel N. Roxas, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati City, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case arose from the execution of a final and executory Decision in Civil Case No. 01-1002, where FGU Insurance Corporation (represented by complainant) prevailed against NEC Cargo Services, Inc. A Writ of Execution was issued on July 10, 2006. Respondent Sheriff Leodel N. Roxas levied on personal properties at NEC’s office on July 11, 2006, and scheduled an auction. However, a third-party claim was filed by Narciso E. Catalon, asserting ownership over the levied assets. Complainant was notified but did not post the required indemnity bond, leading respondent to lift the levy, cancel the sale, and return the writ unsatisfied by August 7, 2006.
Subsequently, complainant alleges that in October 2007, it provided respondent with NEC’s Articles of Incorporation to identify leviable unpaid stock subscriptions and requested a new levy or garnishment. Complainant asserts that respondent refused to act on this information and failed to submit any periodic reports on his execution efforts despite repeated follow-ups, leaving the judgment unsatisfied. Respondent, in his defense, denied any malicious refusal, citing his initial compliance with the levy and the subsequent lifting due to the third-party claim. He claimed his duty ended with the return of the unsatisfied writ.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Leodel N. Roxas is administratively liable for his actions and inactions following the return of the unsatisfied writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty. The Supreme Court emphasized that a sheriff’s duty to execute a final judgment is a continuing ministerial responsibility that does not terminate upon the mere return of an unsatisfied writ. The Rules of Court mandate the sheriff to make a report to the court and to the requesting party every thirty days on all proceedings undertaken until the judgment is fully satisfied. Respondent’s failure to submit these required periodic reports constituted a clear neglect of this duty.
Furthermore, the Court found that respondent exhibited indifference by not taking further action after the writ was returned unsatisfied. The provision of new information regarding potential leviable assets (unpaid stock subscriptions) imposed upon him a renewed obligation to utilize available legal means to enforce the judgment. His inaction and lack of initiative to explore alternative avenues for execution, coupled with his failure to keep the court and the judgment creditor informed through regular reports, demonstrated carelessness and a disregard for his official functions. This conduct falls short of the diligence required of court personnel, whose role is crucial in ensuring that court decisions are not rendered mere paper judgments. For this first offense of simple neglect of duty, respondent was suspended from office for one month and one day, with a stern warning against repetition.