In Atty. Leopoldo C. Lacambra, Jr. v. Christopher T. Perez, the Supreme Court held a deputy sheriff liable for neglect of duty due to the prolonged failure to implement a writ of execution and failure to submit timely reports. This case underscores the mandatory and ministerial duty of sheriffs to execute court judgments promptly, reinforcing the principle that delayed justice is effectively denied justice.

Sheriff’s Delay: Can Inaction Undermine Justice?

The case arose from an administrative complaint filed by Atty. Leopoldo C. Lacambra, Jr., against Christopher T. Perez, a Deputy Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City. The complaint alleged neglect of duty, delay in the administration of justice, dishonesty, and violation of Republic Act No. 3019, concerning Perez’s handling of a writ of execution. The underlying civil case involved damages awarded to Atty. Lacambra’s clients, and a writ of execution was issued to enforce the judgment. However, despite receiving funds for implementation, Perez failed to execute the writ for nearly three years.

Perez defended his actions by claiming that the provided funds were insufficient, and he cited difficulties in locating the defendants. He also mentioned an instance where he met one of the defendants but lost his cellphone, hindering further contact. He further argued that these efforts demonstrated his diligence in attempting to serve the writ. Despite his explanations, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Perez liable for simple neglect of duty and recommended a two-month suspension, a recommendation the Supreme Court ultimately adopted.

The Supreme Court emphasized the sheriff’s crucial role in the justice system. Sheriffs are responsible for executing final judgments, and failure to do so undermines the entire judicial process. The Court reiterated the mandatory nature of a sheriff’s duty to execute a writ and make a return within the prescribed period. It highlighted Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules on Civil Procedure, which requires the writ of execution to be returned to the court immediately after the judgment is satisfied, and if not fully satisfied within 30 days, the officer must report the reasons to the court, followed by periodic reports every 30 days until the judgment is fully satisfied or the writ expires.

In this case, the Court noted the undisputed non-implementation of the writ for over three years and Perez’s failure to submit periodic reports. The Court pointed out the lapse of over two years between his attempts to execute the writ and deemed this delay as negating his claim of diligent effort. This neglect was compounded by his failure to keep the court updated on his progress. Thus, the Court considered this as clear evidence of neglected duty.

The duty of sheriffs to promptly execute a writ is mandatory and ministerial. Sheriffs have no discretion on whether or not to implement a writ. There is no need for the litigants to ‘follow-up’ its implementation. When writs are placed in their hands, it is their ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with their mandate.

Further, the Supreme Court addressed the improper receipt of funds by Perez directly from Atty. Lacambra. It reiterated that sheriffs may only receive court-approved fees and that accepting any other amount is improper, regardless of the intended use. The Court cited the procedures outlined in Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, emphasizing that expenses must be estimated, approved by the court, deposited with the clerk of court, disbursed to the sheriff, and properly liquidated, all of which Perez bypassed.

The Court stressed that inefficiency, negligence, misconduct, or ignorance on the part of a sheriff in executing a judgment undermines the integrity of the judiciary. While the charges of dishonesty and graft and corruption were not substantiated, the neglect of duty was clearly established. Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty warrants suspension. Thus, considering it was Perez’s first offense, the Court found a two-month suspension without pay appropriate.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Deputy Sheriff Christopher T. Perez neglected his duty by failing to implement a writ of execution and submit required reports within a reasonable timeframe.
What did the Court decide?	The Court found Perez liable for neglect of duty and suspended him for two months without pay. It emphasized the mandatory and ministerial nature of a sheriff’s duty to execute court judgments promptly.
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.
Why is it important for a sheriff to execute a writ promptly?	Prompt execution of writs is crucial because it ensures that judgments are enforced effectively, thereby providing justice to the prevailing party. Delays undermine the judicial process and diminish public faith in the judiciary.
What are the reporting requirements for sheriffs?	Sheriffs are required to make a return on the writ immediately after the judgment is satisfied. If the judgment cannot be fully satisfied within 30 days, they must report to the court the reasons and then provide periodic reports every 30 days until the judgment is fully satisfied.
Can a sheriff receive money directly from a litigant for expenses?	No, sheriffs may only receive court-approved fees. Any other amount must be deposited with the clerk of court, and expenses must be estimated, approved by the court, and properly liquidated.
What is the consequence for a sheriff’s failure to properly execute a writ?	A sheriff who fails to execute a writ promptly and diligently may be held administratively liable for neglect of duty. Penalties can include suspension or even dismissal from service, depending on the severity of the offense.
What rule governs the payment of sheriff’s expenses?	Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as revised by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, provides the specific procedures for the payment of expenses incurred in the execution of writs and other processes.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Lacambra v. Perez serves as a stern reminder to sheriffs regarding their obligations in executing court orders. It clarifies the importance of diligence, adherence to procedures, and accountability in the performance of their duties. This case reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring the timely and effective administration of justice.

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: ATTY. LEOPOLDO C. LACAMBRA, JR. VS. CHRISTOPHER T. PEREZ, A.M. No. P-08-2430, July 14, 2008