AM P 92 695; (December, 1994) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-92-695. December 7, 1994. CYNTHIA A. FLORENDO, complainant, vs. EXEQUIEL ENRILE, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Cynthia Florendo was the prevailing plaintiff in consolidated ejectment cases. After the Regional Trial Court affirmed the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) decision ordering defendants to vacate, a writ of execution and subsequently a writ of demolition were issued. Respondent Deputy Sheriff Exequiel Enrile was assigned to implement the writs. He collected a total of P5,200.00 from the complainant and her counsel for purported sheriff’s fees, for which he issued no official receipts, only informal handwritten acknowledgments. Despite receiving this payment, Enrile failed to execute the writ of demolition. Complainant’s counsel sent a demand letter, but Enrile neither performed the demolition nor returned the money, prompting this administrative complaint.
In his defense, Enrile admitted collecting the money but claimed he attempted to serve the writs. He alleged the defendants threatened his life (“magkamatayan muna”), which deterred him. He filed his returns of service months after the fact. The MTCC Clerk of Court later confirmed the threat and recommended assigning a different sheriff. The investigating Executive Judge noted Enrile’s uncooperative attitude during the investigation, including repeated postponements and failure to secure counsel.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Exequiel Enrile is administratively liable for his actions concerning the implementation of the writ of demolition and the collection of fees.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of grave misconduct, gross dishonesty, serious neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the service. The legal logic proceeds from the mandatory nature of a sheriff’s duty to execute court orders promptly and faithfully. A sheriff’s function is ministerial; he must implement writs without delay and cannot exercise discretion to disobey them. Enrile’s claim of a death threat is unacceptable. The proper course was to immediately report the threat to the court and request police assistance or the assignment of additional sheriffs, not to unilaterally cease efforts and delay filing his returns. His inaction deprived the complainant of the fruits of a final judgment for a prolonged period.
Furthermore, his collection of P5,200.00 without issuing official receipts constitutes gross dishonesty and violates rules governing sheriff’s fees. The amount, collected in installments through irregular means, was excessive and improperly solicited. Such conduct erodes public trust in the judiciary. Considering the gravity of the offenses, which demonstrate unfitness to uphold the integrity of the office, the penalty of dismissal is appropriate. The Court ordered his dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and prejudice to re-employment in any government agency.