G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-16-3430 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3905-P). March 1, 2016.
Case Parties: Aireen A. Mahusay, Complainant, vs. George E. Gareza, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Victorias City, Negros Occidental, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Aireen A. Mahusay, representing Lopue’s Victorias Corporation, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Sheriff George E. Gareza for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and gross negligence. The complaint stemmed from Gareza’s implementation of a writ of execution in Small Claims Case No. SCC-8-V. The MTCC issued the writ on October 11, 2011. Gareza received a partial payment of ₱10,000.00 from the judgment obligor, Joseph Andrei A. Garcia, through Garcia’s staff. However, Gareza failed to remit this amount to the judgment creditor (Lopue’s) or to the Branch Clerk of Court for about four months and ten days, despite follow-ups. The money was only received by Lopue’s on March 7, 2012. Furthermore, Gareza failed to submit a return of service on the writ for an extended period. He only filed a return on July 24, 2014—almost three years after the writ’s issuance—and only after the complainant filed an ex-parte motion to direct him to enforce the writ. In his defense, Gareza claimed he deferred enforcement due to Garcia’s status as a city councilor and his willingness to settle, and that he was unsure how to report the payment. The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Dyna Doll C. Trocio, who found Gareza irresponsible and recommended his dismissal. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concurred with this recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Sheriff George E. Gareza should be held administratively liable for dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, and simple neglect of duty and be dismissed from service.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Sheriff George E. Gareza administratively liable and ordered his dismissal from service. The Court adopted the factual findings and recommendations of the Investigating Judge and the OCA. The Court held that sheriffs have a ministerial duty to execute writs with utmost dispatch and to promptly account for and remit any money collected in satisfaction of a judgment, as mandated by Section 9(a), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Gareza’s failure to immediately remit the ₱10,000.00 partial payment he received constituted misappropriation and dishonesty. His unjustified delay of almost three years in implementing the writ and making a proper return constituted gross neglect of duty. His failure to submit the return of service within the period required by the Rules (Section 14, Rule 39) constituted simple neglect of duty. Given the gravity of the offenses, which undermined the integrity of the judiciary and the administration of justice, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any government agency.