A.M. No. P-93-795, July 18, 1994
Maria Añonuevo, complainant, vs. Rolando E. Pempeña, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Maria Añonuevo, the prevailing plaintiff in a forcible entry case, obtained a final and executory judgment. A writ of execution was issued on February 4, 1992, commanding respondent Sheriff Rolando E. Pempeña to restore possession of the premises to complainant, demolish a structure erected by defendants, and collect monetary awards. Complainant gave respondent P500 for implementation expenses. Respondent collected P12,000 from one defendant but failed to fully satisfy the judgment or effect the eviction and demolition.
Respondent, in his defense, argued that the delay was due to complainant’s non-cooperation and her greater interest in the monetary award. He claimed the demolition could not proceed without a special court order and that he had made partial collections. Complainant countered that respondent failed to levy sufficiently on defendants’ properties and made anomalous deductions from collected amounts.

ISSUE

Whether respondent sheriff is administratively liable for non-performance of official duties in implementing the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of non-performance of official duty, but only concerning the monetary execution and eviction, not the demolition. The Supreme Court found respondent’s execution efforts unjustified and incomplete. The writ commanded him to satisfy a solidary monetary obligation from the defendants. His act of collecting only a partial amount from one defendant, treating the obligation as merely joint, constituted a failure to exhaust all lawful means for full satisfaction, such as levying on other leviable properties of all defendants.
Furthermore, respondent’s deduction of an additional P200 from collected funds, despite having already received sheriff’s fees from complainant, was an abhorrent and anomalous practice. The Court emphasized that every judiciary employee must be an example of integrity, and respondent’s conduct fell short of this standard. However, the Court absolved respondent regarding the demolition aspect. Following Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and jurisprudence, the demolition of improvements requires a special order from the court, which was not obtained in this case. Thus, his failure to demolish was justified. For his dereliction on the monetary and possessory aspects, respondent was fined one month’s salary with a stern warning.