In Velasco v. Tablizo, the Supreme Court addressed the critical duty of court officials to promptly and effectively execute court orders. The Court held Atty. Prospero V. Tablizo, a Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff, liable for gross neglect of duty and refusal to perform official duty after he failed to implement writs of execution in two civil cases. This decision reinforces the principle that failure to execute judgments undermines the judicial process and erodes public confidence in the legal system. The Court emphasized that such negligence cannot be tolerated, especially when it delays the administration of justice and renders court decisions ineffective. The Court imposed a fine of P40,000 and directed further investigation into related charges.

Justice Delayed: When a Sheriff’s Inaction Undermines the Court’s Mandate

This case arose from two separate civil cases, Civil Case Nos. 489 and 466, where Judge Nieto T. Tresvalles of the Municipal Trial Court of Virac, Catanduanes, ruled in favor of Atty. Angeles A. Velasco’s clients. Following these decisions, writs of execution were issued, commanding Atty. Tablizo to implement specific actions, including ejecting defendants from properties, demanding payments, and levying on properties if necessary. Despite receiving these writs, Atty. Tablizo failed to take any action. This inaction prompted Atty. Velasco to file an administrative complaint, alleging gross neglect of duty and misconduct.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) took cognizance of the complaint after it was referred by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. The OCA directed Atty. Tablizo to comment on the allegations, but he failed to respond despite multiple directives from the OCA and the Supreme Court. Due to his failure to respond, the Court dispensed with the comment requirement and referred the matter back to the OCA for evaluation, report, and recommendation.

The OCA’s investigation confirmed Atty. Tablizo’s failure to implement the writs, leading to a recommendation that he be held liable and fined. The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA’s findings, emphasizing the critical role of clerks of court and ex-officio sheriffs in the execution of court orders. Ex-officio sheriffs have a sworn duty to enforce writs placed in their hands, ensuring that court decisions are effectively carried out. This duty is not discretionary but mandatory and ministerial, meaning that sheriffs must implement writs promptly and strictly according to the letter.

The Court cited specific provisions of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to illustrate Atty. Tablizo’s dereliction of duty. Section 9(a) and (b) outlines the procedures for executing judgments for money, including demanding payment, levying on properties, and selling properties to satisfy the judgment. Section 10(c) details the process for delivering or restoring real property, requiring the officer to demand that individuals vacate the property. Section 14 mandates the timely return of writs of execution and the submission of periodic reports. Atty. Tablizo failed to comply with any of these requirements.

SEC. 9. Execution of judgments for money, how enforced. —

(a) Immediate payment on demand. — The officer shall enforce an execution of a judgment for money by demanding from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees. The judgment obligor shall pay x x x the amount of the judgment debt under proper receipt directly to the judgment obligee or his authorized representative if present at the time of payment. The lawful fees shall be handed under proper receipt to the executing sheriff who shall turn over the said amount within the same day to the clerk of court of the court that issued the writ.

The Court emphasized that the task of implementing writs cannot be taken lightly. Execution is the fruit of the suit and the life of the law. Judgments left unexecuted due to negligence delay the administration of justice and render decisions futile. Moreover, Atty. Tablizo’s failure to respond to the charges against him was deemed an admission of guilt.

The Court also noted the existence of two other pending administrative cases against Atty. Tablizo, indicating a pattern of misconduct. Although Atty. Tablizo had already retired from service, the Court still imposed a fine, recognizing that the failure to implement writs of execution constitutes gross neglect of duty and refusal to perform official duty, both classified as grave offenses under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. In conclusion, the Court found Atty. Tablizo guilty and fined him P40,000, reinforcing the importance of diligence and accountability among court officers.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Tablizo, as Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff, was liable for failing to implement writs of execution in two civil cases. This inaction was considered a neglect of duty and undermined the judicial process.
What is a writ of execution?	A writ of execution is a court order directing an officer of the court, such as a sheriff, to take specific actions to enforce a judgment. These actions can include ejecting individuals from properties, demanding payments, or levying on assets.
What does it mean for a sheriff’s duty to be “ministerial”?	When a sheriff’s duty is described as “ministerial,” it means they have a legal obligation to perform that duty according to the law or court order. They do not have discretion to decide whether or not to perform the duty.
What are the possible consequences for a sheriff who neglects their duties?	A sheriff who neglects their duties can face administrative penalties, including suspension, fines, or even dismissal from service. They may also be held liable for damages caused by their negligence.
What is gross neglect of duty?	Gross neglect of duty is a grave offense that involves a significant failure to properly perform one’s official duties, indicating a clear lack of diligence or care. It often leads to severe penalties, such as dismissal from service.
What rule governs execution of judgement?	Rule 39 of the Rules of Court sets out the procedure to be followed in the execution of judgments.
What was the finding of the Court in this case?	The Court found respondent retired Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff Atty. Prospero V. Tablizo guilty of gross neglect of duty and refusal to perform official duty.
What was the penalty imposed by the court?	The Court imposed a fine on the respondent in the amount of P40,000.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Velasco v. Tablizo serves as a stern reminder of the responsibilities entrusted to court officers and the serious consequences of neglecting those duties. This ruling highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that court orders are enforced promptly and effectively, thereby maintaining the integrity of the legal system and upholding public trust.

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: Angeles A. Velasco v. Atty. Prospero V. Tablizo, A.M. No. P-05-1999, February 22, 2008