In Sonido v. Majaducon, the Supreme Court addressed the administrative complaint against a judge and a sheriff concerning the execution of a court judgment. The Court clarified the sheriff’s duties in enforcing writs of execution, emphasizing that diligence does not equate to infallibility. This decision underscores that a sheriff must act within a reasonable timeframe and with demonstrable effort to serve a writ, but is not liable if the judgment debtor cannot be located or possesses no assets despite those efforts. The Court dismissed the complaint, providing clarity on the scope of a sheriff’s responsibility in executing court orders.

When Diligence Isn’t Enough: Examining a Sheriff’s Duty in Unsuccessful Execution

This case revolves around a complaint filed by Salustiano Sonido against Judge Jose S. Majaducon and Sheriff Cyr M. Perlas concerning the implementation of a judgment in Civil Case No. 2610-II. Sonido alleged negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of Sheriff Perlas for failing to execute the writ of execution against the judgment debtor, Julie Salazar. He further claimed that Judge Majaducon was negligent for not assisting in the execution. The central legal question is whether the respondents were remiss in their duties, particularly the sheriff’s role in serving the writ of execution and the judge’s supervisory function in ensuring its implementation.

The complainant, Sonido, contended that Sheriff Perlas failed to serve the writ diligently, particularly pointing to the sheriff’s service of the writ at the MTCC premises, which allegedly forewarned Salazar and allowed her to conceal her assets. He also argued that the sheriff abandoned the writ when he transferred to the RTC. However, Sheriff Perlas defended his actions, stating that he made diligent efforts to locate Salazar and levy her properties within the 60-day period prescribed by the Rules of Court. He further clarified that he even managed to obtain P500 from Salazar, which he immediately turned over to Sonido. The Court Administrator, to whom the case was initially referred, recommended absolving Judge Majaducon but found Sheriff Perlas negligent for the manner of serving the writ.

The Supreme Court diverged from the Court Administrator’s findings regarding Sheriff Perlas. The Court emphasized the sheriff’s responsibility for the speedy and efficient service of court processes but also acknowledged the practical challenges in executing judgments. It noted that the sheriff made efforts to locate Salazar and her properties before serving the writ at the MTCC. This negated the claim that the service was improvident or premature. Building on this, the Court referenced Section 11, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court which outlines the timeline for the return of a writ of execution:

“Section 11. Return of 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 whole. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer must 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 must make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is fully satisfied, 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 entered upon the docket.”

The Court also highlighted that the subsequent returns made by other sheriffs assigned to the case confirmed that Salazar could not be located and had no known property to satisfy the judgment. This supported Sheriff Perlas’s assertion that he was not negligent in his duties. The Court also noted that Sheriff Perlas’s actions did not deviate from his responsibilities. The timeline of the actions taken by Sheriff Perlas from receiving the writ to attempting to locate and serve Salazar, demonstrated diligence and adherence to procedural requirements.

The Court reinforced the principle that a sheriff’s duty involves reasonable diligence, not a guarantee of successful execution. The fact that the judgment remained unsatisfied was not solely attributable to the sheriff’s actions, but also to the circumstances surrounding the judgment debtor’s whereabouts and assets. As such, the Court held that Sheriff Perlas had not been remiss in his duties, as his actions demonstrated a reasonable effort to serve the writ and locate the judgment debtor’s assets.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the sheriff and judge were negligent in their duties related to the execution of a court judgment, specifically concerning the sheriff’s diligence in serving the writ of execution.
What was the complainant’s main argument?	The complainant argued that the sheriff was negligent for failing to serve the writ diligently, particularly for serving it in a way that alerted the debtor to conceal assets, and that the judge failed to assist in the execution.
What did the Court Administrator initially recommend?	The Court Administrator recommended absolving the judge but found the sheriff negligent for the manner in which the writ was served.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling on the sheriff’s actions?	The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court Administrator, finding that the sheriff had made reasonable efforts to serve the writ and locate the debtor’s assets, and thus was not negligent.
What is the sheriff’s responsibility in executing a writ?	The sheriff is responsible for the speedy and efficient service of court processes and writs, including executing and enforcing the court’s judgments, but this responsibility is bounded by reasonableness and diligence.
What is the timeframe for a sheriff to make a return on a writ of execution?	Under Section 11, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, a sheriff must return the writ of execution to the court after the judgment has been satisfied or, if not fully satisfied, must report to the court within 30 days.
Was there any evidence that the sheriff benefitted from the delay?	No, the sheriff even obtained P500 from the debtor, which he immediately turned over to the complainant, demonstrating an effort to partially satisfy the judgment.
What was the ultimate outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint against both the judge and the sheriff, finding no merit in the allegations of negligence and dereliction of duty.

This case provides a valuable perspective on the responsibilities and limitations of sheriffs in executing court judgments. It emphasizes the importance of diligence and adherence to procedural rules, while also recognizing the practical difficulties that may arise in enforcing judgments. The ruling underscores that sheriffs are expected to make reasonable efforts to serve writs and locate assets, but they are not guarantors of successful execution.

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: SALUSTIANO G. SONIDO VS. JUDGE JOSE S. MAJADUCON and SHERIFF CYR M. PERLAS, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1541, December 03, 2001