The Supreme Court has clarified the duties of a sheriff regarding the execution of court orders. In this case, it was found that while a sheriff may face challenges in fully enforcing a writ of execution, particularly when encountering resistance from occupants on a property, they are still obligated to diligently report the progress of their efforts to the court. Failure to provide these periodic updates, as mandated by the Rules of Court, constitutes simple neglect of duty, even if the sheriff faces obstacles in completing the execution. This ruling emphasizes the importance of accountability and adherence to procedural requirements in the execution of court judgments.

Delayed Justice: Sheriff’s Neglect and the Imperative of Timely Reporting

This case, Development Bank of the Philippines v. Damvin V. Famero, revolves around a complaint filed by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) against Sheriff Damvin V. Famero for gross neglect of duty amounting to gross misconduct. The DBP alleged that Sheriff Famero failed to implement a Writ of Execution issued in a civil case concerning a property acquired by the DBP. The central legal question is whether Sheriff Famero’s actions constituted a dereliction of his duties as an officer of the court, specifically concerning the timely and diligent execution of a writ and the required reporting to the issuing court.

The DBP’s complaint stemmed from Sheriff Famero’s alleged failure to enforce a writ issued in 2005, directing the defendant association to vacate and deliver possession of a 5,766-square meter property to the DBP. The DBP acquired this property through a public auction sale. Despite the writ being issued, the DBP claimed that Sheriff Famero failed to implement it, causing significant delays. In response, Sheriff Famero argued that he did attempt to enforce the writ. He visited the property, informed the occupants of the order, and faced resistance, including threats from alleged insurgents. He also suggested that the DBP secure a writ of demolition to remove structures on the property.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially directed Sheriff Famero to comment on the charges. Following the submission of pleadings, the Court referred the matter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro for investigation, report, and recommendation. Executive Judge Pastor A. de Castro heard the parties and concluded that Sheriff Famero had not totally ignored the implementation of the Writ of Execution. However, he also noted that the sheriff failed to successfully evict the occupants, thereby frustrating the bank’s possession of the property.

The Supreme Court’s analysis centered on Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which outlines the requirements for the return of a writ of execution. This rule mandates that a sheriff must return the writ to the issuing court immediately after the judgment is satisfied, either partially or fully. If the judgment cannot be fully satisfied within thirty days of receiving the writ, the officer must report the reasons for the non-satisfaction to the court. Furthermore, the officer must provide periodic reports to the court every thirty days, detailing the proceedings taken until the judgment is fully satisfied or the writ’s effectivity expires. The Court emphasized the importance of these reports, stating:

It is mandatory for a sheriff to make a return of the writ of execution to the clerk or judge issuing it.

In Sheriff Famero’s case, the writ was issued on July 13, 2005. While he visited the property shortly after, his initial Sheriff’s Return of Service was only filed on July 24, 2007, a delay of two years. Subsequent attempts to implement the writ occurred in January 2008 and January 2009, with corresponding delays in reporting. The Court found that Sheriff Famero failed to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements of Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The Court explained that:

The submission of the return and of periodic reports by the sheriff is a duty that cannot be taken lightly. It serves to update the court on the status of the execution and the reasons for the failure to satisfy its judgment.

The Court acknowledged the challenges Sheriff Famero faced, particularly the resistance from informal settlers who had built permanent structures on the property. The Court agreed with the sheriff’s assessment that a writ of demolition was necessary to fully enforce the order. Section 10(d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that:

(d) Removal of Improvements on property subject of execution. – When the property subject of the execution contains improvements constructed or planted by the judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove said improvements except upon special order of the court, issued upon motion of the judgment obligee after the hearing and after the former has failed to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court.

Despite these mitigating factors, the Court held Sheriff Famero accountable for his failure to make periodic reports. The Court found him guilty of simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to the task expected of him. The Court then considered several mitigating circumstances, including his length of service in the Judiciary, his clear record, the resistance of the informal settlers, fear for his life, and his recognition that he could not undertake any demolition without a court order.

Considering these factors and the potential disruption that a suspension would cause to court operations, the Court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) on Sheriff Famero. The Court also issued a warning that any repetition of this offense would be dealt with more severely. This decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance for court officers, even when faced with challenging circumstances. The Supreme Court balanced the need for accountability with the practical realities of enforcing court orders and the individual circumstances of the officer involved.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Sheriff Famero’s failure to timely implement a writ of execution and submit periodic reports constituted neglect of duty.
What is a writ of execution?	A writ of execution is a court order directing a law enforcement officer, such as a sheriff, to enforce a judgment by seizing property or taking other actions to satisfy the judgment.
What are the reporting requirements for sheriffs regarding writs of execution?	Under Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a sheriff must return the writ to the court after the judgment is satisfied. If the judgment cannot be satisfied within 30 days, the sheriff must report to the court and provide periodic updates every 30 days until the judgment is satisfied or the writ expires.
What is simple neglect of duty?	Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a task that is expected of them, according to established rules and procedures.
What mitigating circumstances did the Court consider in this case?	The Court considered Sheriff Famero’s 24 years of service, his clear record, resistance from informal settlers, fear for his life, and his understanding that he needed a court order for demolition.
Why didn’t the Court impose a suspension on Sheriff Famero?	The Court opted for a fine instead of suspension because it considered the potential disruption to court operations if Sheriff Famero’s work was left unattended due to a suspension.
What is the significance of a writ of demolition in this case?	A writ of demolition is a special order from the court allowing the sheriff to remove improvements or structures built on a property, which is necessary when occupants resist eviction.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court found Sheriff Famero guilty of simple neglect of duty and fined him P2,000.00, with a warning against future offenses.
What rule of court did the sheriff violate?	The sheriff violated Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court regarding the return of writ of execution.

This case serves as a reminder of the critical role that court officers play in the administration of justice. While challenges may arise in the execution of court orders, adherence to procedural requirements, such as timely reporting, is essential. This ensures accountability and promotes the efficient and effective enforcement of judicial decisions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DAMVIN V. FAMERO, A.M. No. P-10-2789, July 31, 2013