A.M. No. P-1622. June 29, 1979. LEONARDA VDA. DE MALASARTE, complainant, vs. DEPUTY SHERIFF LIBRADO Z. YEBES, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, DIPOLOG CITY, respondent.
FACTS:

Complainant Leonarda Vda. de Malasarte, the prevailing party in a forcible entry case, filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Librado Yebes. She charged him with two offenses: first, his failure to fully execute a writ of execution issued in her favor, and second, his act of demanding and receiving from her the sum of P200.00 to supposedly reimburse his expenses incurred while serving the writ. The writ, dated March 4, 1976, commanded the sheriff to place the complainant in possession of a parcel of land and to collect a monetary award of P629.00 from the defendants.
In his defense, respondent Yebes explained that he had indeed placed the complainant in possession of the land. However, he failed to collect the P629.00 because the defendants allegedly had no leviable properties. He admitted receiving the P200.00 from the complainant, presenting an accounting for travel expenses such as pump boat rental and meals, which he claimed were necessary to serve the writ on defendants residing in distant locations. He also admitted failing to make a return of the writ within the 60-day period prescribed by the Rules, keeping it in his possession while purportedly trying to help locate other properties of the defendants.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Librado Yebes is administratively liable for his actions in relation to the execution of the writ.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the investigating Executive Judge. The respondent was exonerated regarding the charge of failing to execute the writ fully, as the evidence showed he had placed the complainant in possession and the failure to collect the monetary judgment was due to the defendants’ lack of attachable assets, which was a valid justification. However, the Court found him liable for two specific infractions. First, his failure to submit a return of the writ within the mandatory 60-day period under Section 11, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court was unjustified and constituted neglect of duty. His excuse of keeping the writ to help locate properties was unsatisfactory. Second, and more seriously, his act of demanding and receiving P200.00 from the complainant as reimbursement for his official expenses was a clear violation of circulars prohibiting sheriffs from collecting such payments directly from prevailing parties without court approval. The investigating judge found these expenses to be unnecessary. Notably, this was the respondent’s second commission of the same offense despite a prior warning. Consequently, for these repeated violations and disregard of the earlier admonition, the Court imposed a heavier penalty. Respondent Deputy Sheriff Librado Z. Yebes was suspended from office for a period of one month without pay.