AM R 146 P; (March, 1986) (Digest)
A.M. No. R-146-P. March 14, 1986. ROMULO S. J. TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. SHERIFF ROLANDO A. BORJA, respondent.
FACTS
Atty. Romulo Tolentino filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Rolando Borja of Naga City, charging him with conduct unbecoming a public officer, malfeasance, gross misconduct, and dereliction of duty. The specific allegation was that Borja failed to implement the Writs of Execution issued in two civil cases from the Regional Trial Court of Naga City. The case was referred to Executive Judge Juan Llaguno for investigation.
Judge Llaguno, after reviewing the respondent sheriff’s comment, found it satisfactory and recommended the dismissal of the complaint. However, upon its own review of the records, the Supreme Court discovered a critical procedural lapse that the investigating judge had overlooked.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent Sheriff Rolando Borja is administratively liable for his failure to make timely returns of the writs of execution, constituting dereliction of duty.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that while the investigating judge focused on the allegation of non-implementation, the records clearly established a violation of procedural rules governing the execution of judgments. In Civil Case No. P-703, the writ was issued on July 11, 1983, but the sheriff’s return was only stamped received on October 18, 1983. In Civil Case No. S-329, the writ issued on July 30, 1983, had a return received only on October 19, 1983.
The legal logic is grounded on Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that a writ of execution is valid for a period of 60 days from its receipt by the sheriff. Within this lifespan, the sheriff must execute the writ and make a return to the court. By filing his returns in October 1983 for writs issued in July 1983, Borja acted beyond the 60-day period prescribed by law. This failure to make a timely return is a direct neglect of a specific, non-discretionary duty. It constitutes dereliction of duty, regardless of the investigating judge’s initial recommendation for dismissal based on other grounds. The Court emphasized that sheriffs, as officers of the court, must adhere strictly to procedural rules to ensure the efficient administration of justice. Their duties are ministerial, and delay in the execution process undermines the finality of judgments. Consequently, the Court found Borja guilty of dereliction of duty and suspended him from office for one month without pay.