G.R. No. A.M. No. P-12-3067; July 4, 2012
Rhea Airene P. Katague, Rodolfo E. Katague, and Rona Salvacion K. Dela, Complainants, vs. Jerry A. Ledesma, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 48, Bacolod City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, defendants in Civil Case No. 08-13303, alleged gross neglect by respondent Sheriff Jerry A. Ledesma in implementing a Writ of Execution for ejectment. The writ, issued on December 17, 2009, ordered plaintiff Eustaquio Dela Torre to vacate certain premises. Respondent served a Notice to Vacate on December 22, 2009, and Dela Torre vacated, but left behind equipment and lumber. Complainants claimed respondent repeatedly failed to fulfill promises to remove these items on scheduled dates. A third-party intervention was filed by Riza L. Schlosser, claiming an interest in the leftover properties, leading to a compromise agreement for their transfer by February 28, 2010. Complainants alleged respondent also failed to facilitate this transfer.
Respondent, in his defense, explained the delays were due to circumstances beyond his control. He argued the properties became subject to a separate liquidation case (Civil Case No. 09-13439) involving Schlosser, rendering them in custodia legis and complicating removal. He further claimed that Schlosser refused to cooperate with the transfer agreement. Following a court order, he sought police assistance for the writ’s enforcement but experienced bureaucratic delays from the police department. He eventually completed the implementation on May 12, 2010, by removing the effects and delivering them to Schlosser.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Jerry A. Ledesma is administratively liable for neglect in the performance of his duties related to the implementation of the Writ of Execution.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. The Supreme Court affirmed the Office of the Court Administrator’s finding but modified the penalty. The Court emphasized that sheriffs, as officers of the court, have a ministerial duty to promptly execute writs and make proper returns as mandated by the Rules of Court. Their functions are crucial to the administration of justice, and any deviation from procedural rules constitutes misconduct.
The legal logic centers on respondent’s failure to submit the required periodic reports and a timely return on the writ, which is a clear procedural lapse. While the Court acknowledged the complicating factors respondent cited—such as the third-party claim, the liquidation case, and delays in securing police assistance—these did not absolve him of his core responsibilities. A sheriff is charged with the knowledge of proper procedure and must take proactive steps to address obstacles, including seeking clarifications from the court if necessary. Respondent’s inaction and delays, particularly in fulfilling his reporting obligations, demonstrated carelessness and indifference to his official duty, constituting simple neglect.
Regarding the penalty, Simple Neglect of Duty is classified as a less grave offense under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases, punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense. The Court found no mitigating circumstances present. Therefore, instead of the reprimand recommended by the OCA, the Court imposed a suspension of fifteen days without pay, with a stern warning against repetition.