Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83855:58448&catid=1589&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:09:28+00:00

Document:
NOVO A. LUCAS, Complainant, v. ROLANDO A. DIZON, SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, STO. DOMINGO, NUEVA ECIJA, Respondent.
In a complaint-affidavit,1 dated February 15, 2011, Novo A. Lucas (complainant) charged Rolando A. Dizon (respondent), Sheriff IV of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija (RTC), with serious neglect of duty and violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019,2 for delaying the implementation of the Writ of Execution3 issued by the Municipal Trial Court of Sto. Domingo (MTC) in a case for collection of sum of money against Francisco Pascual (Pascual), docketed as Civil Case No. 2374.
Complainant alleged that after having secured the August 18, 2010 Writ of Execution (writ) of the judgment which awarded him, among others, the amount of P104,000.00, he immediately proceeded to see respondent, who, being the sheriff, was assigned to implement the writ. According to him, respondent's response to his request was this - "Five (5) years pa naman bago mag-lapse order mo kaya relaks ka lang.4" He made several attempts to seek the writ's enforcement, but nothing happened. Respondent informed him that he was attending to many things, including complainant's case.
At the time the complaint was filed, no copy of the Sheriffs Return had been received by complainant.
In his Comment,16 respondent denied the accusations against him. He claimed that when he and complainant first met, he explained the process of implementing the writ especially the need to demand from Pascual the' fulfillment of the judgment before any seizure of personal properties could be made. He accused complainant of not being interested in the rules as his concern centered on proceeding immediately to Pascual's residence. He claimed that on the day they were to proceed to Pascual's residence, complainant informed him that there was no need to proceed to the house of Pascual because an arrangement had been made. This, according to him, explained why he filed on February 14, 2011 the Sheriffs Partial Return of Service, narrating the details of the execution proceedings in the subject case.
Respondent insisted that the delay in the implementation of the writ was attributable to complainant as the latter never returned after making arrangements with Pascual. A day or two after filing the partial return with the MTC, complainant arrived, together with two other persons on board a tricycle, demanding to immediately proceed to the house of Pascual to seize the latter's truck since the commitment to pay the judgment debt was not honored. Respondent allegedly begged complainant to come back the next day as he was ill and because the weather was bad.
In his Reply, 18 complainant denied that respondent explained to him the procedure for the implementation of the writ; that he knew for a fact that personal properties of Pascual could be seized as he believed all along that he would be getting cash; that there was an arrangement he made with Pascual; and that the real reason why they did not proceed to Pascual's house was respondent's refusal to ride in a tricycle. Finally, complainant cited respondent's failure to file a return with the court within the period prescribed by Section 14 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
In its Resolution,19 dated July 11, 2012, the Court resolved to refer the administrative matter to Executive Judge Nelson A. Tribiana (Judge Tribiana)20 for investigation, report and recommendation.
In his Report,21 dated March 8, 2013, Judge Tribiana stated that the full implementation and satisfaction of the writ was made only on December 4, 2012 or more than two years since it was assigned to respondent in September 2010; that respondent deliberately neglected and refused to perform a mandated duty; and that the reasons offered by respondent were not worthy of consideration.
Regarding the allegation of corruption, Judge Tribiana found no evidence to support it because complainant declined to substantiate his claims. For said reason, Judge Tribiana recommended that respondent be meted out the penalty of dismissal from service for gross neglect of duty. With regard to the complaint for violation of R.A. No. 3019,22 Judge Tribiana recommended that it be dismissed for lack of evidence.
In this case, respondent is charged for failing to perform his ministerial functions in the implementation of the writ of execution issued in favor of complainant. In this regard, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA that respondent's omissions clearly qualify as gross neglect of duty.
In Proserpina V. Anico v. Emerson B. Pilipiña,30 this Court held that the failure of the sheriff to carry out what was a purely ministerial duty, to follow well-established rules in the implementation of court orders and writs, to promptly undertake the execution of judgments, and to accomplish the required periodic reports constituted gross neglect and gross inefficiency in the performance of official duties.
Here, respondent failed to implement and enforce the writ promptly despite repeated pleas by complainant. He attributed his delay to his seeming physical inability to travel several kilometers in inclement weather on board a small crowded tricycle and complainant's failure to return to him after making arrangements with Pascual. These excuses, in the mind of the Court, were not justifiable as they only manifested respondent's deliberate refusal to carry out his mandatory and ministerial functions. Indeed, records show that it took respondent two years from the time the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 2374 was assigned to him. It was only on December 5, 2012, that respondent submitted the Sheriff's Final Report.32 Verily, he had more than enough time to execute the writ, but because of his indifference and inattentiveness to the rights of complainant and the obligations of his office, he did not do anything.
Respondent's indifference became more apparent when he reasoned out during the investigation that the "execution" of a judgment expires only after a period of five (5) years.33 It appears that he misunderstood the said five-year period as the same period that the sheriff may be allowed to carry out the implementation of the writ assigned to him. Obviously, respondent had not only been negligent, but also ignorant of the very rules pertaining to his office. He ought to know that the five-year limitation is the period allowed by the Rules for a party to move for the issuance of a writ"34 and not a period within which the sheriff may complete his task of implementing a writ.
Had he done so, the difficulties he had in dealing with complainant would have been mitigated.
Hence, for the infractions committed, respondent should be meted out the penalty of dismissal from service with the accessory penalties of forfeiture of all his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Time and again, the Court has reiterated that the duties of a sheriff are mandatory and ministerial functions, devoid of discretion and more importantly, burdened with the responsibility of adhering to high ethical standards to preserve the courts' good name and standing.39 He should be an example of responsibility, competence and efficiency, and he must discharge his duties with due care and utmost diligence, since he is a officer of the Court and an agent of the law. Faith of the people in the Judiciary rests equally in his hands.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds ROLANDO A. DIZON, Sheriff IV Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, GUILTY of gross neglect of duty in the performance of his duties and hereby DISMISSES him from service. This penalty shall carry with the accessory penalties of forfeiture of all his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Peralta and Bersamin, JJ., on leave.
2 The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
15 See 1st Indorsement, rollo, p. 24.
20 Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.
22 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
24 Id. at 117. Resolution dated October 14, 2013.
27Teresa T. Gonzales La'O & Co., Inc. v. Sheriff Hatab. 386 Phil. 88 (2000), cited in Gonzales v. Cerenio, 564 Phil. 295 (2007).
28Guerrero-Boylon v. Boyles, A.M. No. P-09-2716, October 11, 2011, 658 SCRA 775.
29Anico v. Pilipiha, A.M. No. P-11-2896, August 2, 201 1, 655 SCRA 42.
31Brucal v. Desierto, 501 Phil. 453 (2005).
33See TSN, November 8, 2012, p. 9; id. at 97.
34 Rules of Court, Sec. 6, Rule 30. A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from date of its entry.
35 Rules of Court, Sec. 14, Rule 39.
36Viaje v. Dizon, 590 Phil. 50 (2008). Docketed as A.M. No. P-07-2402.
37 CIVIL SERVICE RULES, Rule IV, Section 52(A)(2) and (16).
38 CIVIL SERVICE RULES, Rule IV, Section 55.
39Anico v. Pilipina, supra note 29.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.