A.M. No. P-12-3097, November 26, 2012
Vicsal Development Corporation, Complainant, vs. Atty. Jennifer H. Dela Cruz-Buendia, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a final CIAC arbitral award in favor of Dell Equipment & Construction Corp. (DECC) against Vicsal Development Corporation. The CIAC issued a writ of execution directed to the respondent Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, Atty. Jennifer H. Dela Cruz-Buendia, and implemented by respondent Sheriffs Nathaniel Abaya, Luis Alina, Lorelex Ilagan, and Mario Villanueva. The sheriffs garnished the complainant’s bank deposits, leading to the satisfaction of the judgment. Subsequently, the complainant filed an administrative complaint alleging grave abuse of authority. It accused the sheriffs of violating procedural rules under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, specifically Sections 9 and 14, and Section 6, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, citing premature execution, improper garnishment, and failure to timely file and serve the Sheriff’s Return.
The Office of the Court Administrator referred the case for investigation. The Investigating Judge found no evidence of grave abuse of discretion or violation of Section 9, Rule 39, and Section 6, Canon IV concerning the implementation of the writ itself. The judge determined the writ was properly enforced and that Atty. Dela Cruz-Buendia had adequately supervised the sheriffs and addressed the complainant’s concerns, recommending the dismissal of the charges against her. However, the Investigating Judge found the respondent sheriffs liable for violating Section 14, Rule 39 due to their failure to file the Sheriff’s Return within the period mandated by the writ and to furnish copies to the parties, recommending a penalty of a one-month salary fine for simple neglect of duty.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court personnel are administratively liable for grave abuse of authority and neglect of duty in implementing the writ of execution.

RULING

The Court adopted the findings of the Investigating Judge but modified the penalty. It dismissed the charges against Atty. Dela Cruz-Buendia for lack of merit, finding no neglect in her supervisory role. The Court also absolved all respondents of the charges relating to the manner of implementing the writ under Section 9, Rule 39 and the Code of Conduct, as the execution was deemed lawfully carried out. However, the Court affirmed the liability of the four respondent sheriffs for Simple Neglect of Duty due to their violation of Section 14, Rule 39.
The legal logic is grounded in the imperative for sheriffs, as key officers of the court, to adhere strictly to procedural rules to ensure the orderly administration of justice. While the substantive act of execution was valid, the sheriffs’ failure to comply with the ministerial duty of timely filing and serving the Sheriff’s Return constitutes neglect. This return is a critical document that completes the execution process and informs the court and parties of the actions taken. Their omission, though not done in bad faith, demonstrated a lack of diligence in performing a specific, required duty. For simple neglect of duty, the Court imposed a suspension of one month and one day, a penalty aligned with jurisprudence for such infractions, replacing the recommended fine to emphasize the seriousness of procedural compliance in official functions.