G.R. No. P-95-1160, August 13, 1996
Elma M. Baes, et al., vs. Deputy Sheriff Jesus Bautista, RTC, Branch 68, Camiling, Tarlac

FACTS

Complainants, the prevailing plaintiffs in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 5096), charged Deputy Sheriff Jesus Bautista with inefficiency, misconduct, and lack of sincerity in implementing the court’s decision. The Municipal Trial Court had ordered defendants to vacate the subject property and pay attorney’s fees. Several writs and alias writs of execution were issued from 1991 to 1995 to enforce this judgment.
The investigation by Executive Judge Prudencio V.L. Ruiz revealed a pattern of delay and inaction by respondent sheriff. He admitted to filing his return on the first writ months after the mandatory period. For subsequent alias writs, he filed returns late, failed to file any return for two writs, and only successfully enforced the writ in September 1995 with police assistance, though defendants later re-entered. Respondent claimed his delays were due to compassion for the defendants’ pleas for more time and, alternatively, due to threats.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Jesus Bautista is administratively liable for his failure to promptly execute court writs and submit the required returns.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the investigating judge’s recommendation and found respondent guilty of inefficiency and neglect of duty. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory nature of procedural rules governing sheriffs’ duties. Section 11, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court requires the officer to make a return on a writ of execution within 60 days, a period deemed mandatory. Furthermore, the Manual for Clerks of Court mandates sheriffs to report on action taken on writs within ten days from receipt.
The Court emphasized that a sheriff has a ministerial duty to execute writs with reasonable celerity and has no discretion to delay execution. Respondent’s proffered excuses were untenable. Compassion for the defendants cannot justify violating procedural rules and compromising the public-trust character of his office, as personal feelings must not override official duty. His claim of threats was also rejected, as he should have taken appropriate official steps to address such obstacles rather than simply failing to act. His procrastination and failure to file returns constituted a deplorable delay in the administration of justice. Accordingly, the Court suspended respondent from office for two months without pay.