A.M. No. P-89-367, January 9, 1992
Pancho Yap Young vs. Roberto M. Momblan

FACTS

Complainant Pancho Yap Young filed an administrative complaint against respondent Deputy Sheriff Roberto M. Momblan for neglect of duty. The case stemmed from a final and executory 1987 RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 14789, which ordered, among other things, the cancellation of complainant’s land titles and the payment of monetary awards by cross-defendants and a third-party defendant to the complainant. A Writ of Execution was issued in October 1988 commanding the sheriff to execute the decision fully.
Complainant alleged that respondent sheriff maliciously failed to implement the writ against the cross-defendants and the third-party defendant, who were obligated to pay him sums of money. Complainant also faulted the respondent for serving him a copy of the writ and demanding the surrender of his land titles, arguing he was not a judgment delinquent. In his defense, respondent claimed he believed a separate motion for execution from the complainant was necessary to enforce the monetary awards and that serving the writ on the complainant was proper to notify him of the order to surrender the titles.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Roberto M. Momblan is administratively liable for neglect of duty in the execution of the final judgment.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court, agreeing with the Court Administrator’s evaluation, found respondent negligent. The Writ of Execution explicitly commanded the sheriff to execute the entire final decision. A sheriff’s duty in executing a writ is ministerial, not discretionary; he must implement it according to its mandate with reasonable celerity and without deviation. Respondent had no authority to unilaterally decide that the monetary awards in favor of the complainant required a separate motion or to partially execute the writ. His defense that the obligated parties might have had no properties was irrelevant and not a justification for failing to attempt execution. His inaction constituted a failure to perform an official duty.
Regarding the service of the writ on the complainant, the Court found no irregularity. The underlying decision directly ordered the cancellation of the complainant’s titles; therefore, serving him a copy was a proper notice of his obligation to surrender those documents. However, this did not excuse his core failure to execute the monetary judgments. For this neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the service, the Court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a warning for future infractions.