A.M. No. P-12-3062. July 25, 2012.
Normandy R. Bautista, Complainant, vs. Marking G. Cruz, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Rosales, Pangasinan, Respondent.

FACTS

The case originated from an ejectment suit where the MTC ordered defendants to surrender possession of a 3.42-square-meter portion of land to complainant Bautista and co-plaintiffs. This decision was affirmed with modification by the CA and became final. The MTC subsequently issued a Writ of Execution. Complainant alleged that respondent Sheriff Cruz failed to implement the writ efficiently. Specifically, on the scheduled implementation date, respondent refused to force open a locked garage door or tow a car inside, claiming he could not use force without a demolition order. Complainant also alleged respondent served the Notice to Vacate only on the defendants and not their counsel, potentially delaying the process, and refused to recover certain litigation costs, leading to accusations of bias or possible bribery.
Respondent defended his actions, asserting he had fully implemented the writ as evidenced by a later Certificate of Possession. He argued the delay was due to complainant’s initial refusal to hire a surveyor to precisely identify the small portion and complainant’s subsequent departure for Canada, which left no authorized representative to receive possession. Respondent maintained that without a specific court order for demolition, he could not legally destroy property or use force to access the garage, especially since the defendants still owned the remaining area of the lot.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Marking G. Cruz is administratively liable for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his duties in implementing the Writ of Execution.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for inefficiency and incompetence. The Supreme Court clarified that a sheriff’s duty in executing a judgment is ministerial. He must execute the order strictly to the letter, employing reasonable diligence to ensure its implementation. The Court found respondent’s justifications for delay unpersuasive. His failure to serve the Notice to Vacate upon the defendants’ counsel was a clear procedural lapse that could hinder the execution process. More significantly, his failure to submit the required periodic reports to the court regarding the status of the writ’s implementation constituted gross inefficiency. These omissions demonstrated incompetence in the performance of his official duties.
However, the Court did not find evidence sufficient to support the more serious charges of gross ignorance of the law, misfeasance, or bias. Respondent’s caution regarding the use of force without a demolition order, while contributing to delay, was not deemed a grossly ignorant misapplication of rules under the specific circumstances. Considering the mitigating factor that the writ was eventually fully implemented, the Court modified the recommended penalty. Instead of suspension, respondent was found guilty of inefficiency and incompetence and meted the penalty of REPRIMAND, with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.