A.M. No. P-94-1063. December 17, 1996. BERNARDITA B. CHUA in behalf of ACCORD LOANS, INC., petitioner, vs. BENJAMIN A. GONZALES, respondent.
FACTS:

On May 24, 1991, the Municipal Trial Court of Angeles City issued a writ of execution in a collection case, commanding the City Sheriff of Olongapo City to levy on the properties of the judgment debtors, Spouses Nuñez. Respondent Deputy Sheriff Benjamin A. Gonzales levied on a television set owned by the spouses on July 25, 1991. The complainant, Bernardita Chua, representing the judgment creditor Accord Loans, Inc., alleged that her company only discovered the levy in May 1994 through the debtors. Despite demands, respondent failed to produce the levied property or its value and failed to file a return of service with the court as required by the Rules.
In his defense, respondent admitted levying on the television but claimed he forgot about the writ due to the disruptive effects of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in June 1991. He asserted he remembered the matter only upon receiving the administrative complaint in September 1994, after which he retrieved the TV set from a person with whom he had entrusted it for safekeeping.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Benjamin A. Gonzales is administratively liable for his failure to properly execute the writ and file the required return.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found his defense of forgetfulness due to the volcanic eruption unworthy of credence. The levy was conducted on July 25, 1991, over a month after the eruption, demonstrating that the calamity did not prevent him from performing the levy. His subsequent failure to file a sheriff’s return within the mandated period under Section 11, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court and to proceed with the sale of the property for over three years constituted gross neglect of duty. The Court noted this was respondent’s third administrative offense, with prior cases involving similar irregularities in handling levied properties. His pattern of conduct evinced a deliberate attempt to retain the property for his own benefit, not mere forgetfulness. Considering his repeated infractions, the Court imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from reemployment in any government agency.