A.M. No. P-93-942, April 6, 1995
Jovita R. Casal vs. Francisco Concepcion, Jr., Deputy Sheriff, RTC, Branch 78, Quezon City

FACTS

Complainant Jovita R. Casal was the prevailing party in an ejectment case. Respondent Deputy Sheriff Francisco Concepcion, Jr. was deputized to implement the writ of execution. Complainant gave respondent a total of P23,190.00 on separate occasions to facilitate the implementation, with some payments covered by receipts. Despite this, respondent failed to fully execute the writ and subsequent alias writs. He later demanded an additional P10,000.00, of which complainant paid P3,000.00 and later another P6,000.00. After receiving these sums, respondent disappeared, compelling complainant to move for the appointment of a special sheriff.
In his comment, respondent denied the charges. He attributed the delay to a motion to quash an alias writ and the expiration of the writ’s life. He claimed a partial understanding with complainant to evict only a few tenants initially and presented partial returns as evidence. He denied pocketing the money, submitting a statement of account for expenses like transportation and meals. During the investigation, complainant’s counsel testified, denying that the payments were for necessary expenses as he had personally provided for such costs. Respondent failed to appear and testify despite opportunities and eventually stopped reporting for work, later tendering a resignation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Francisco Concepcion, Jr. is administratively liable for dereliction of duty and misconduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross neglect of duty and misconduct. The Court found that respondent failed to exert reasonable efforts to fully implement the writs in a simple ejectment case over two years, successfully evicting only three out of seventeen tenants. His excuses for delay were untenable. A decision based on a compromise agreement is final and executory, and its execution cannot be prevented absent a restraining order. His claim of an understanding with complainant to evict only a few tenants was self-serving and belied by his continued solicitation of money.
Respondent failed to properly account for the monies received from complainant. His statement of account listed exorbitant and un-receipted expenses, and he did not rebut the testimony of complainant’s counsel that separate advances covered such costs. The Court reiterated that a sheriff cannot receive voluntary payments from parties in the course of official duties. His failure to testify left complainant’s evidence unrebutted. His subsequent absence without leave and abandonment of his post during the investigation were indicative of guilt, akin to flight in criminal cases. His resignation, received months after he stopped working, did not exonerate him.
DISPOSITIVE
Respondent is DISMISSED from service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or corporation.