Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82062:56105&catid=1572&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:32:43+00:00

Document:
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. BENILDA A. TEJADA, Complainant, v. DAMVIN V. FAMERO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43, ROXAS, ORIENTAL MINDORO, Respondent.
In a letter complaint1 dated June 11, 2009, the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), through its Office of the Legal Counsel, charged Sheriff IV Damvin V. Famero (respondent), Regional Trial Court (RTC), Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 43, with Gross Neglect of Duty amounting to Gross Misconduct. In support of its charges, the DBP submitted a Joint Affidavit2 executed by Atty. Michael Vernon R. de Gorio and Mr. Romel P. San Diego, Regional Counsel and Branch Head, respectively, of the DBP’s Calapan, Mindoro Branch.
The complaint stemmed from the respondent’s alleged failure/refusal to implement the Writ of Execution issued in Civil Case No. C-475, entitled “Development Bank of the Philippines, Calapan Branch v. Damayang Buklurang Pangkabuhayan Roxas, Represented by Romeo Tejada” (for Forcible Entry with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Damages). The case involved a 5,766-square meter parcel of land located in Poblacion, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, acquired by the DBP in a public auction sale. It is now registered in its name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-103245 of the Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro.
The complaint shows that in a decision dated August 24, 2004, the RTC directed the defendant Damayang Buklurang Pangkabuhayan Roxas (association), or any person acting in its behalf or deriving any right from it, to vacate and deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff, now complainant DBP. On July 13, 2005, on the DBP’s motion, the RTC issued a writ of execution3 directing the respondent to implement the judgment. Despite repeated demands, however, the respondent allegedly failed to implement the writ. After almost four (4) years from its issuance, the writ remains to be implemented.
He reported that several of the occupants readily left the place when he told them to vacate the property, but returned again and constructed their shanties thereon after the association filed on November 20, 2009 an urgent motion for the quashal/lifting of the writ of execution. This development contributed to the delay in the implementation of the writ.
The DBP filed a Reply-Affidavit9 dated September 17, 2009, reiterating its allegations of gross neglect of duty against the respondent.
In a Resolution10 dated March 24, 2010, the Court, on the OCA’s recommendation, directed the re-docketing of the complaint as a regular administrative case, and required the parties to manifest to the Court within ten (10) days from notice whether they were submitting the matter for resolution based on the pleadings filed and the records submitted.
In its Manifestation11 dated May 14, 2010, the DBP responded that it was submitting the complaint on the basis of the pleadings filed and the submitted records. The respondent, on the other hand, requested in his Manifestation12 dated July 1, 2010 that an investigation be conducted.
The DBP filed a partial motion for reconsideration of the referral,14 alleging that it would result in undue advantage to the respondent and deprive the bank of an impartial investigation of the case since the referral was to a judge with jurisdiction over the area where the respondent was assigned.
The Court, in a Resolution15 dated January 17, 2011, denied the DBP’s partial motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
All having been told already, the court was convinced that the respondent Sheriff had not totally ignored the implementation of the said Writ of Execution, per honest to goodness evaluation of the respective claim of the parties on this matter. Made as basis for this observation are the respondent’s alleged implementation of the subject Writ of Execution for three (3) times in a row. One was as early as July 15, 2005 or just only two (2) days after the said writ was issued by the court on July 13, 2005, per return of service dated July 24, 2007 or more than two (2) years after its alleged service on said date; second, was on January 10, 2008, per return of service dated February 12, 2008; and, the third, was on January 23, 2009, per return of service dated February 3, 2009. These series of services though made under the long interval of time as shown by said returns, the court found no contradicting document in the records and/or introduced during the proceedings telling that those services did not indeed take place. Unfortunately, however, the respondent failed to successfully evict the occupants from the subject property despite those services thereby frustrating the said respondent to place the complainant bank in possession of the property involved. Be that as it may the respondent is still optimistic that he could ultimately turn over the property into the possession of the owner complainant-bank if given another chance to do it through Writ of Demolition. On this score, he said “If given another chance I would like the DBP people to give a Writ of Demolition which is much easier to enforce.” Per honest understanding of the court, the respondent would like to convey that he found it hard for himself in enforcing successfully the said Writ of Execution, but if the writ to be implemented is for demolition, he could be able to enforce it easier or without much ado.
In the present case, the writ of execution was issued by the RTC on July 13, 2005. Two days thereafter, or on July 15, 2005, the respondent went to the property to personally serve the writ on Romeo Tejada, then the president of the association, but Tejada was no longer connected with the association and had already left the place. Thus, on August 15, 2005, the respondent should have submitted a report to the RTC on the reason why the judgment had not been satisfied in full; this report must have been made every thirty (30) days thereafter until the judgment was satisfied in full or until its effectivity expired.
The record shows that the respondent filed his Sheriff’s Return of Service only on July 24, 2007,20 or after the lapse of two (2) years. He again sought to implement the writ on January 10, 2008, and submitted a Sheriff’s Return of Service on February 12, 2008.21 He reported that he informed the occupants of the property that they had only up to January 31, 2008 to remove their shanties and vacate the place. However, he was told by the occupants that they would not vacate the property because it was a declared timberland and that they had filed a case against the DBP for Declaratory Reliefs, Declaration of Nullity of Titles and Documents and/or Reversion with Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order.
Under these facts, the respondent clearly failed to comply with the requirements of Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court when he failed to submit a return of service every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken on the writ he was to implement. The long intervals of time between service of the writ on the occupants, to be sure, were not a full and prompt discharge of his responsibility for the speedy and efficient execution of the court’s judgment.
However, we cannot entirely blame the respondent for his failure to fully implement the writ. He could not fulfill his task solely by verbally telling the occupants to vacate the property as he encountered resistance from the informal settlers on the property who had built permanent structures thereon and refused to leave. The respondent was correct in repeatedly suggesting to the DBP to file with the RTC a motion for the issuance of a writ of demolition as the property subject of the execution contained improvements constructed or planted by the occupants.
In the present case, we find the respondent to be entitled to the following mitigating circumstances: (1) his more than 24 years of service in the Judiciary; (2) a clear record other than for the present infraction which is his first offense; (3) the resistance of the informal settlers to leave the property; (4) fear for his life; and (5) his well-grounded recognition that he could not undertake any demolition without the appropriate court order.
WHEREFORE, for Simple Neglect of Duty, respondent Damvin V. Famero, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 43, is FINED in the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00), with the WARNING that any repetition of this offense or of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
13 Resolution dated August 16, 2010; id. at 93.
18 Arevalo v. Loria, 450 Phil. 48, 58 (2003); and Areola v. Patag, A.M. No. P-06-2207, December 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 10, 13.
19 Calo v. Dizon, A.M. No. P-07-2359, August 11, 2008, 561 SCRA 517, 527.
22 Sheriff’s Return of Service; id. at 38.
25 Pesongco v. Estoya, 519 Phil. 226, 242-243 (2006).
26 Beltran v. Monteroso, A.M. No. P-06-2237, December 4, 2008, 573 SCRA 1, 7.
27 Juario v. Labis, A.M. No. P-07-2388, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 540, 544-545.

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