A.M. No. P-91-611 August 5, 1994
ROSITA ANDAMO VDA. DE GILLEGO, complainant, vs. ATTY. HENRY AMADO ROXAS, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court Branch 55, Sorsogon, Sorsogon; and JESUS GARLAN, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, respondents.

FACTS

Rosita Andamo Gillego filed a sworn complaint against Clerk of Court Henry Amado Roxas and Deputy Sheriff Jesus Garlan for dereliction of duty for their failure to enforce a Writ of Execution. The complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. 380 for ejectment/demolition. A Special Order of Demolition was issued by the MTC of Bulan, Sorsogon, directing the demolition of a portion of a house illegally constructed on complainant’s lot. On April 15, 1991, complainant paid P1,500 to respondent Clerk of Court Roxas as legal fees for the demolition’s implementation. Despite this payment and the hiring of laborers, respondent Deputy Sheriff Garlan failed to appear on the set date for demolition. The MTC had issued the original Writ of Execution on April 3, 1989, a Special Order on August 20, 1989 specifically ordering Garlan to implement it, and an Alias Writ of Execution on July 30, 1991, which Garlan admitted receiving on August 9, 1991. Furthermore, Deputy Court Administrator Juanito Bernad, in a letter dated November 22, 1990, directed Garlan to comply without further delay. Clerk of Court Roxas received the P1,500 on April 15, 1991, but only remitted it to Deputy Sheriff Garlan on June 8, 1992. Garlan claimed he attempted to persuade the occupants to voluntarily vacate and demolish the encroaching portion and that the delay in receiving the funds hindered implementation. Roxas claimed he constantly reminded Garlan about the writ.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Clerk of Court Henry Amado Roxas and Deputy Sheriff Jesus Garlan are administratively liable for their failure to enforce the Writ of Execution and related orders for demolition.

RULING

The Supreme Court found both respondents administratively liable.
1. Deputy Sheriff Jesus Garlan was found guilty of dereliction of duty. The Court held that his duty was to execute the writ promptly, not to wait for years attempting persuasion after the judgment became final. He disregarded three specific orders to implement the writ (the Special Order of August 20, 1989, the directive from the Deputy Court Administrator in November 1990, and the Alias Writ of July 1991). He also violated the Rules of Court by failing to make a mandatory return on the writ within the prescribed period (Rule 39, Section 11) and by not securing the issuing court’s approval for estimated expenses as required (Rule 141, Section 9). His justification of delayed fund remittance was insufficient to avoid responsibility.
2. Clerk of Court Henry Amado Roxas was found guilty of neglect of duty. The Court held he was remiss in his duty by holding the P1,500 deposit for demolition expenses for an inordinately long period (from April 15, 1991, to June 8, 1992) before remitting it to the sheriff, offering no sensible reason for the delay. By the time of remittance, the Alias Writ had become stale.
DISPOSITIVE:
(a) Clerk of Court Henry Amado Roxas was REPRIMANDED and WARNED that repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.
(b) Deputy Sheriff Jesus Garlan was SUSPENDED for six (6) months and WARNED that repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt with more drastically.