G.R. No. A.M. No. P-2427 and A.M. No. P-2207. March 28, 1983.
ARSENIO FRANCISCO and PHILIPPINE TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, INC., complainants, vs. EDUARDO BERONES, Deputy Sheriff of Manila, respondent.

FACTS

In A.M. No. P-2427, complainant Arsenio Francisco charged respondent Deputy Sheriff Eduardo Berones with grave dereliction of duty for failing to serve summons and make a return in Civil Case No. 054673-CV. The failure aborted scheduled hearings. Respondent’s explanation was evasive, admitting only partial nonfeasance. The investigating judge recommended dismissal due to complainant’s non-appearance, but the Supreme Court found respondent answerable based on his own admission.
In A.M. No. P-2207, the Philippine Trial Lawyers Association charged respondent with neglect for failing to implement a sheriff’s sale under a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 103365. Respondent twice failed to appear at scheduled auctions. Investigation revealed he levied on properties beyond the 60-day period prescribed by the Rules of Court and delayed the return of the writ for nearly ten months. During the investigation, respondent ignored hearing notices and attempted dilatory tactics.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Eduardo Berones is administratively liable for dereliction of duty and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of grave dereliction of duty. In A.M. No. P-2427, his failure to serve summons and make a timely return, as partially admitted, caused undue delay in the judicial process. This constitutes nonfeasance. In A.M. No. P-2207, his actions demonstrated gross neglect. He scheduled auction sales but failed to appear, levied on properties beyond the authorized period in violation of Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, and delayed the return of the writ for months. His conduct during the investigation showed a pattern of disregard for his duties and the proceedings.
The Court emphasized that while respondent, as a city appointee, could only be dismissed by the City Mayor, the Supreme Court retains supervisory authority over court personnel and functions integral to the administration of justice. Citing precedents like Malanyaon vs. Galang, the Court can withdraw from an individual the authority to perform such functions due to undesirable conduct. Respondent’s actions, coupled with a prior suspension record, rendered him unfit. The Court ordered the immediate withdrawal of his authority to perform sheriff’s duties and strongly urged the City Mayor to dismiss him from the service.