AM P 99 1337; (April, 2000) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-99-1337. April 5, 2000. TERESA T. GONZALES LA’O & CO., INC., thru counsel JOSE P. O. ALILING IV, complainant, vs. Sheriff JADI T. HATAB, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant was the prevailing party in an unlawful detainer case. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the lower court’s judgment ousting the defendant and, upon complainant’s motion, issued an order for execution pending appeal on September 1, 1997. A corresponding writ of execution was issued. Despite this order and repeated follow-ups by the complainant for about a month, respondent Sheriff Jadi T. Hatab failed to implement the writ and execute the judgment.
In his defense, respondent sheriff claimed he held the execution in abeyance for two reasons: first, due to the pendency of the defendant’s urgent motion for reconsideration of the September 1 order; and second, because of the re-raffle of the case after the presiding judge inhibited herself.
ISSUE
Whether respondent sheriff is administratively liable for his failure to promptly execute a final and immediately executory judgment in an ejectment case.
RULING
Yes, respondent sheriff is guilty of grave misconduct. The legal logic is anchored on the ministerial and mandatory nature of a sheriff’s duty to execute final court orders without delay. Section 21, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly states that a judgment of the Regional Trial Court in an appealed ejectment case “shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal.” This rule removed the discretion previously available under old rules to delay execution.
The respondent’s justifications are legally untenable. The pendency of a motion for reconsideration does not automatically stay the execution of an immediately executory judgment. Similarly, a mere re-raffle of the case does not justify inaction. A sheriff’s duty to execute a valid writ is ministerial; he has no discretion to suspend its implementation absent a lawful restraining order from a superior court. By failing to act with reasonable celerity, respondent deprived the complainant of the fruits of its victory, undermining the administration of justice. Following precedent, such unwarranted delay constitutes grave misconduct warranting dismissal. The Court thus dismissed respondent from service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency.