A.M. No. RTJ-00-1541; December 3, 2001
SALUSTIANO G. SONIDO, complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE S. MAJADUCON, Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, General Santos City and SHERIFF CYR M. PERLAS, RTC-OCC, General Santos City, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Salustiano Sonido obtained a favorable judgment in Civil Case No. 2610-II from the MTCC, then presided by respondent Judge Jose Majaducon, ordering Julie Salazar to pay a sum of money. Respondent Sheriff Cyr M. Perlas received the writ of execution on November 8, 1989. On November 21, 1989, the sheriff served the writ on Salazar within the MTCC premises, which the complainant alleged was an improvident act that warned her and allowed her to hide her properties. The sheriff made a return on January 8, 1990, stating he could not locate Salazar or levy any property. An alias writ was later issued but also returned unsatisfied.
Sonido filed this administrative complaint, alleging that Sheriff Perlas was negligent for the delayed service, for abandoning the writ upon his transfer, and for the improper service at the courthouse. He also charged Judge Majaducon with negligence for failing to assist in the writ’s execution. The sheriff defended his actions, explaining he attempted service within the 60-day period, made a timely return, and even secured a partial payment of P500.00 from Salazar, which he turned over to the complainant.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Jose Majaducon and Sheriff Cyr M. Perlas are administratively liable for negligence in the execution of a final judgment.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint against both respondents for lack of merit. Regarding Judge Majaducon, the implementation of a writ of execution is the sole responsibility of the sheriff, not the judge. The charge against him was therefore baseless.
Concerning Sheriff Perlas, the Court found no negligence. His service of the writ on Salazar at the MTCC on November 21, 1989, was not improvident, as he had previously attempted to locate her and her properties at her residence. He complied with the 60-day period under the Rules by making a return on January 8, 1990. The complainant’s claim of a two-month delay mistakenly conflated the return date with the service period. The sheriff’s diligent efforts were corroborated by subsequent returns from other sheriffs, which also indicated Salazar’s whereabouts were unknown and she had no leviable property. His act of securing a partial payment further demonstrated proper performance of duty. Thus, he did not deviate from his responsibility for the speedy and efficient service of court processes.