In Sps. Felipe and Roselyn Biglete vs. Deputy Sheriff Bonifacio V. Maputi, Jr., the Supreme Court addressed the administrative liability of a deputy sheriff who failed to properly execute a writ. The Court found Deputy Sheriff Maputi guilty of dereliction of duty for not making a timely return of the writ of execution and for improperly handling garnished funds. This decision emphasizes the critical, ministerial role of sheriffs in ensuring the effective administration of justice, underscoring that any deviation from mandated procedures warrants disciplinary action. The deputy sheriff was suspended for six months without pay, serving as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal procedures.

Sheriff’s Shortcomings: When Expediency Undermines Legal Duty

The case arose from a complaint filed by Sps. Felipe and Roselyn Biglete against Deputy Sheriff Bonifacio V. Maputi, Jr., alleging serious misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and oppression. The complaint stemmed from the execution of a “Subsidiary Writ of Execution” in a criminal case where the Bigletes’ funds were garnished. The central issues were whether Deputy Sheriff Maputi failed to adhere to prescribed procedures in executing the writ, specifically regarding the handling of garnished funds and the timely return of the writ to the court.

The spouses Biglete claimed that the sheriff garnished their deposit but did not turn it over to the Clerk of Court as mandated by the Rules of Court. Instead, they alleged that he misappropriated the funds. Moreover, they asserted that he failed to make a return of the writ within the required 30-day period. Despite the complainants’ plea that their property was a family home exempt from execution, the sheriff proceeded with a public auction sale, which was halted only by a temporary restraining order from the Court of Appeals.

In response, Deputy Sheriff Maputi argued that he did not misappropriate the funds but instead gave them to the counsel for the private complainant in the criminal case. He also contended that he was not required to return the writ because he intended to levy upon additional properties to fully satisfy the judgment, believing that a continuous proceeding would expedite the execution process. As for the levy on the family home, he claimed it was not exempt due to its assessed value exceeding P300,000.00, and that he had observed all legal requirements in carrying out the levy.

The Court Administrator, after evaluating the case, found that the respondent sheriff had indeed violated the procedure on execution provided in the Rules of Court. Specifically, he failed to turn over the garnished money to the Clerk of Court and did not make a return of service of the writ to the Court. These were deemed basic procedures that the sheriff could not claim ignorance of, as they were central to his duties. The Court Administrator recommended the sheriff’s dismissal from service.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court Administrator’s findings, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the Rules of Court. Section 14, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, explicitly outlines the duties of a sheriff in executing a writ:

“Sec. 14. Return of the writ of execution.– The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full.   If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reason therefor.  Such writ shall continue in effect during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion.  The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires.  The returns or periodic reports shall set forth the whole of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and copies thereof promptly furnished the parties.”

The Court emphasized that the sheriff is mandated to make a return of the writ immediately upon satisfaction of the judgment and to report within thirty days if the judgment cannot be fully satisfied. Furthermore, periodic reports must be submitted every thirty days until the judgment is fully satisfied. The purpose of this requirement is to keep the court informed of the status of the execution and to ensure the swift execution of decisions.

The respondent sheriff’s admission that he failed to make a return of the writ and submit periodic reports was a critical point in the Court’s decision. His explanation that he believed continuous proceedings were more efficient was dismissed, as it disregarded the explicit requirements of the law. The Court reiterated that a sheriff’s duty in executing a writ is purely ministerial. They have a duty to perform faithfully and accurately what is required of them and have no discretion in the manner of executing a final judgment. Any deviation from the legal requirements is unacceptable.

Moreover, the Court found fault with the sheriff’s handling of the garnished funds. Section 9, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides clear instructions on how judgments for money should be enforced:

“Sec. 9. Execution of judgments for money, how enforced.– a) x x x

If the judgment obligee or his authorized representative is not present to receive payment, the judgment obligor shall deliver the aforesaid payment to the executing sheriff.  The latter shall turn over all the amounts coming into his possession within the same day to the clerk of court of the court that issued the writ, or if the same is not practicable, deposit said amounts to a fiduciary account in the nearest government depository bank of the Regional Trial Court of the locality.

The clerk of said court shall thereafter arrange for the remittance of the deposit to the account of the court that issued the writ whose clerk of court shall then deliver said payment to the judgment obligee in satisfaction of the judgment.  The excess, if any, shall be delivered to the judgment obligor while the lawful fees shall be retained by the clerk of court for disposition as provided by law.  In no case shall the executing sheriff demand that any payment by check be payable to him.”

The respondent sheriff admitted to receiving the check representing the proceeds of the garnished account but, instead of turning it over to the Clerk of Court, he kept it upon instructions from the counsel for the private complainant. He then encashed the check and gave the money to the attorney, which the Court found to be a direct violation of the rules. The Court emphasized the critical role of sheriffs in the administration of justice, noting that they are primarily responsible for executing final judgments.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found Deputy Sheriff Maputi guilty of dereliction of duty or refusal to perform official duty. While the Court Administrator recommended dismissal, the Supreme Court deemed the penalty too harsh and instead imposed a suspension from office for six months without pay. This decision reinforces the principle that sheriffs must adhere strictly to the rules and procedures governing the execution of writs and the handling of funds, as any deviation can undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the deputy sheriff failed to adhere to prescribed procedures in executing a writ, specifically regarding the handling of garnished funds and the timely return of the writ to the court.
What did the complainants allege against the deputy sheriff?	The complainants alleged that the deputy sheriff misappropriated garnished funds and failed to make a return of the writ within the required 30-day period. They also claimed he proceeded with a public auction sale of their family home despite their objections.
What was the sheriff’s defense?	The sheriff claimed he did not misappropriate the funds but gave them to the counsel for the private complainant. He argued he was not required to return the writ as he intended to levy upon additional properties and believed continuous proceedings would expedite the process.
What did the Court Administrator find?	The Court Administrator found that the sheriff violated the procedure on execution by failing to turn over the garnished money to the Clerk of Court and not making a return of service of the writ.
What does Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure require?	Rule 39, Section 14 requires the sheriff to make a return of the writ immediately upon satisfaction of the judgment and to report within 30 days if the judgment cannot be fully satisfied. Periodic reports must be submitted every 30 days until full satisfaction.
How should a sheriff handle garnished funds according to Rule 39, Section 9?	According to Rule 39, Section 9, if the judgment obligee is not present, the sheriff must turn over all garnished funds to the clerk of court on the same day or deposit them in a fiduciary account in the nearest government depository bank.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court found the deputy sheriff guilty of dereliction of duty and imposed a suspension from office for six months without pay.
Why wasn’t the sheriff dismissed, as recommended by the Court Administrator?	The Supreme Court found the penalty of dismissal too harsh, opting instead for a six-month suspension without pay, considering the circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance by sheriffs in the execution of court orders. It clarifies the responsibilities of sheriffs in handling funds and reporting to the court, emphasizing that deviations from these duties can lead to disciplinary action. The ruling serves as a reminder that expediency cannot justify the neglect of established legal procedures within the Philippine judicial system.

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: SPS. FELIPE AND ROSELYN BIGLETE VS. DEPUTY SHERIFF BONIFACIO V. MAPUTI, JR., A.M. No. P-00-1407, February 15, 2002