In the Philippine legal system, a sheriff’s duty to execute a court’s judgment is ministerial, demanding prompt and reasonable action. This means sheriffs must follow the court’s orders without unnecessary delay or personal judgment, using necessary and reasonable force to enforce the law. The Supreme Court held that while compassion is important, sheriffs cannot substitute their own sense of justice for court-ordered rulings, and that engaging in lengthy negotiations instead of enforcing a writ of execution constitutes dereliction of duty, potentially prejudicing the rights of the prevailing party.

When “Dialogue” Becomes Dereliction: A Sheriff’s Duty in Question

This case, Nicanor T. Santos v. Delilah Gonzales-Muñoz and Romeo R. Florendo, revolves around an administrative complaint filed by Nicanor T. Santos against Delilah Gonzales-Muñoz, Clerk of Court, and Romeo R. Florendo, Sheriff IV, both from the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City. Santos accused them of gross neglect of duty for their failure to enforce a writ of execution and demolition orders in LRC Case No. 12075, a land dispute between Santos and the heirs of Rosa Ganayo. The key issue was whether the respondents’ actions, particularly the sheriff’s prolonged negotiations with the judgment debtors, constituted a dereliction of their duty to promptly execute the court’s orders.

The roots of the case trace back to 1962 when Santos filed a petition to cancel an adverse claim by Rosa Ganayo on his land title. The court ruled in favor of Santos in 1963, declaring him the owner but requiring him to compensate Ganayo for the houses and improvements on the land. After appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision in 1982. Following the valuation of the improvements, the trial court issued a writ of execution in 1993, ordering the heirs of Ganayo to vacate the premises upon Santos’ payment. However, the heirs refused to accept the payment and vacate, leading to the issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution and, eventually, a final Alias Writ of Execution on November 24, 1993, authorizing the sheriff to use necessary force.

Despite the explicit instructions in the Alias Writ, Sheriff Florendo spent nearly a year and a half engaging in dialogues with the judgment debtors. In May 1995, he filed a manifestation requesting a special order of demolition, stating that the heirs would only vacate if the sheriff’s office demolished their houses. This led to further delays as hearings were scheduled and postponed. The court eventually issued a demolition order in September 1996. However, when the sheriff finally went to the property, he found that one of the houses had been partially demolished and new constructions had been erected, occupied by a new party, Peter Saguilot, who was not initially part of the case. The sheriff, unsure of how to proceed, only requested the heirs to vacate, who again refused.

This situation prompted Santos to initiate contempt proceedings against the heirs, Saguilot, and the respondents, alleging their failure to execute the demolition order. Subsequently, Santos filed the administrative complaint that led to this Supreme Court decision. The Court, after reviewing the facts, emphasized the ministerial duty of sheriffs, stating that a sheriff’s role is to execute a judgment without exercising personal judgment on its propriety. Citing Florendo v. Enrile, the Court reiterated that a purely ministerial act is one performed in obedience to legal authority, without regard to one’s own judgment.

A purely ministerial act is one “which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of the legal authority, without regard to the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety of the act done.”

The Court found Sheriff Florendo’s prolonged negotiations with the judgment debtors as an unacceptable defense for failing to promptly implement the writs of execution. The Court stressed that “the time for persuasion was over upon the finality of the judgment and issuance of the Writ of Execution,” quoting from Vda. de Gillego v. Roxas. The sheriff’s unauthorized dialogues contributed to the delay and allowed the construction of new houses on the property. The court referenced Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which outlines the sheriff’s duties in executing judgments, reinforcing the principle that sheriffs must act with celerity and promptness.

Addressing the issue of the new occupant, Peter Saguilot, and the new constructions, the Court acknowledged the complexity of the situation. It cited Sta. Ana v. Suñga, emphasizing that when a new possessor claims to be a privy or disputes the writ’s application, a hearing should be conducted to determine the enforceability of the writ against them. Nevertheless, the Court found both respondents at fault for the delay in executing the demolition orders even after Saguilot and another heir, Eduardo Beswayan, were found guilty of indirect contempt and ordered to vacate the premises.

There may be cases when the actual possessor may be claimed to be a privy to any of the parties to the action, or his bona-fide possession may be disputed, or where it is alleged, as in the instant case, that such possession has been taken in connivance with the defeated litigant with a view to frustrating the judgment. In any of these events, the proper procedure would be to order a hearing on the matter of such possession and to deny or accede to the enforcement of a writ of possession as the finding shall warrant. But in the absence of any such hearing or any proceeding of a similar character, every person in the actual possession of the land has a right to be respected therein (Art. 446, Civil Code) and his ejectment would constitute a deprivation of a property right without due process of law.

The Sheriff’s delay in serving the notice to vacate after the contempt order and the failure to secure adequate assistance for the demolition were seen as failures in their duty. The Court acknowledged that compassion is understandable, but sheriffs cannot allow their sympathies to override the court’s decisions. The continued delays could give the appearance of partiality and prejudice the rights of the prevailing party, thereby failing to uphold the standards of their office, which require propriety, decorum, and being beyond suspicion.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Clerk of Court and Sheriff were guilty of gross neglect of duty for failing to promptly enforce a writ of execution and demolition orders, particularly concerning the sheriff’s prolonged negotiations with the judgment debtors.
What is a sheriff’s ministerial duty?	A sheriff’s ministerial duty refers to the obligation to execute a court’s judgment in a prescribed manner, without exercising personal judgment on the propriety of the act; they must follow the court’s orders.
Why was the sheriff found to have committed dereliction of duty?	The sheriff was found to have committed dereliction of duty due to the excessive delay in implementing the writ of execution and demolition orders, as he spent an extended period negotiating instead of enforcing the court’s directives.
What is the significance of the Alias Writ of Execution in this case?	The Alias Writ of Execution was significant because it explicitly authorized the sheriff to use any necessary force to execute the judgment, yet the sheriff delayed implementation with unauthorized negotiations.
What should a sheriff do when encountering new occupants on the property?	When encountering new occupants, a sheriff should refer the matter to the court for a hearing to determine if the new occupants are privies to the original parties and whether the writ applies to them.
Can a sheriff’s compassion excuse the failure to enforce a court order?	While compassion is understandable, a sheriff cannot allow personal sympathies to override the duty to uphold and enforce court orders, as doing so would undermine the judicial process.
What was the outcome of the administrative complaint?	As a result of the administrative complaint, the sheriff was fined P10,000, and the Clerk of Court was fined P5,000, with both being sternly warned against repeating similar acts in the future.
What does it mean to act with “reasonable celerity and promptness”?	Acting with “reasonable celerity and promptness” means a sheriff should proceed to execute a writ without undue delay, acting swiftly to ensure the judgment is enforced efficiently and effectively.

This case underscores the delicate balance between a sheriff’s duty to enforce the law and the human element of compassion and discretion. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that sheriffs must prioritize their primary duty of executing court orders promptly and efficiently, acting within the bounds of their ministerial functions. The case is particularly instructive for law enforcement and court personnel involved in the execution of judgments, highlighting the importance of adhering to procedural rules and upholding the integrity of the judicial process.

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: Nicanor T. Santos v. Delilah Gonzales-Muñoz and Romeo R. Florendo, A.M. No. P-02-1628, August 14, 2002