G.R. No. A.M. No. P-14-3272, November 11, 2014
FELICIANO O. FRANCIA, Complainant, vs. ROBERTO C. ESGUERRA, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Davao City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Feliciano O. Francia was the plaintiff in an Unlawful Detainer case. The MTCC decided in his favor, ordering the defendants to vacate the property. The RTC affirmed this decision. A Writ of Execution was issued on April 26, 2012, commanding respondent Sheriff Roberto C. Esguerra to implement it, with a return due within sixty days. Respondent received the writ on May 2, 2012. Complainant alleged that respondent asked for and received ₱3,000.00 for expenses and was offered an additional ₱15,000.00 for full satisfaction. Despite this, the writ remained unimplemented for over a year, prompting the administrative complaint for neglect of duty. In his explanation, respondent admitted receiving the ₱3,000.00, claiming it was for legal expenses. He contended that his efforts to have the defendants vacate voluntarily failed, that he requested police assistance, and that he was waiting for the complainant to appear to proceed with implementation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Roberto C. Esguerra is administratively liable for his actions and omissions in relation to the implementation of the Writ of Execution.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, and gross inefficiency. The Supreme Court found him liable for:
1. Violating Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court: He improperly received ₱3,000.00 directly from the complainant without following the prescribed procedure of submitting an estimate for court approval, depositing the amount with the Clerk of Court, and liquidating the expenses. This act constituted acceptance of unauthorized fees.
2. Gross Neglect and Inefficiency: He failed to implement the writ for over a year and did not comply with his ministerial duty under Section 14, Rule 39 to make a return within 30 days or submit periodic reports every 30 days until the judgment was satisfied. His excuses for the delay were untenable.
3. Dishonesty: His failure to implement the writ gave rise to the presumption that he was waiting for additional consideration or had received a bribe to stall implementation.
Considering his previous suspension for dereliction of duty and another pending charge, the Court dismissed him from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.