G.R. No. A.M. No. 699 EN BANC A.M. No. R-699-P August 7, 1987
Alberto Patangan, complainant, vs. Reynaldo Concha, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Alberto Patangan obtained a money judgment and secured a writ of execution from the Municipal Trial Court. He delivered the writ to respondent Reynaldo Concha, the Clerk of Court and Deputy Provincial Sheriff, urging immediate service as the judgment debtor, Florinette Magpulong, might transfer residence. Respondent initially served the writ on Magpulong on April 23, 1986, and she promised payment by 2:00 P.M. that day. When she failed to pay, respondent, accompanied by a deputy, went to her residence that evening. There, he levied on her personal properties but did not take physical custody. Instead, he merely padlocked the house and warned Magpulong not to remove the items.
The following day, Magpulong absconded with all her levied properties to another city. Complainant informed respondent, who then demanded a P500.00 deposit for expenses to pursue the debtor, which the complainant could not afford. Respondent, in his defense, cited heavy workload, staffing shortages, and his humanitarian consideration for the debtor’s plea for time to sell her properties at a fair price.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Reynaldo Concha is administratively liable for gross dereliction of duty in the execution of the writ.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of gross dereliction of duty. The Court emphasized that a sheriff’s duty in executing a writ is ministerial and mandatory. He must act with dispatch to ensure the administration of justice is not unduly delayed, as a judgment becomes an empty victory without execution. In this case, respondent failed to exercise due diligence. After lawfully levying on sufficient personal property, his failure to take actual possession and control constituted a critical error. Leaving the judgment debtor in possession, based merely on her promise and his professed humanitarian reasons, directly enabled her to abscond with the properties.
The Court found his excuses—workload and staffing—unavailing, as he had already prioritized the writ due to the complainant’s insistence. His subsequent demand for a deposit to chase the debtor was a further dereliction, as the initial levy should have secured the claim. By allowing the debtor to retain control after levy, he effectively lifted the execution, causing irreparable prejudice to the judgment creditor. This constituted gross neglect warranting severe penalty. Accordingly, respondent was DISMISSED from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and prejudice to re-employment in any government agency.