---

Dereliction of Duty and Dismissal Integrity in Public Service

When a court issues a writ of execution, the sheriff is the officer who carries it out. That role places sheriffs in close contact with litigants and the public. Their conduct reflects on the judiciary itself.

In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Ruben S. Nequinto (A.M. No. P-00-1371, January 23, 2002), the Supreme Court dismissed a sheriff from service for grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service. The case shows how seriously the Court treats abuse of authority by court personnel.

The facts of the case

The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) lost a collection suit before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The trial court ordered DBP to pay a sum of money and later granted execution pending appeal. Sheriff Ruben S. Nequinto of Branch 145 was designated as special sheriff to implement the writ.

The writ commanded the sheriff to collect the amount stated in the decision. When Sheriff Nequinto went to DBP's head office, however, he demanded a much larger amount based on a different computation. He threatened to seal the bank's vault and levy its computers and office equipment if he was not paid in cash.

DBP officials asked for time to verify the writ. They also offered to pay by manager's check and to have a bank property levied upon instead. The sheriff refused the offer and insisted on cash. DBP was forced to issue a manager's check for P10 million under protest.

The sheriff then issued a notice of levy on personal properties that were not specifically described. He also served notices of garnishment on DBP's deposits with other banks. On December 2, 1997, he proceeded to the bank to conduct a sale of the levied properties despite DBP's pending motion and written objections.

In his return, Sheriff Nequinto falsely stated that he was prevented from entering the bank building. He did not disclose the P10 million check, the offer of real property for levy, or the garnishment notices.

The rules he violated

The Supreme Court found that Sheriff Nequinto failed to follow the procedure for executing money judgments under Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under Section 9, Rule 39, the officer must demand immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ. The judgment obligor may pay in cash, certified bank check, or any other form acceptable to the judgment obligee. The same provision gives the judgment obligor the option to choose which property may be levied upon.

Under Section 14, Rule 39, the officer must return the writ to the court immediately after the judgment is satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied within thirty days, the officer must report to the court and state the reason. Periodic reports are required every thirty days until the judgment is fully satisfied.

The Court also noted that the sheriff failed to comply with the requirement to make a full return of his proceedings. His return omitted material facts, which the Office of the Court Administrator found to be deliberate.

Why the Court dismissed him

The Court emphasized that sheriffs are agents of the law. They must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence. When they serve writs and implement orders, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their office and the administration of justice.

Sheriff Nequinto's conduct went beyond mere error. He insisted on enforcing a bloated computation instead of the amount stated in the writ. He threatened to seal the bank's vault and seize money from teller cages. He levied on computers and equipment in a way that could paralyze the bank's operations. He ignored DBP's right to choose which property to levy. And he concealed material facts in his return.

The Court characterized this as grave misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. It cited Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Fuentes and Sheriff Paralisan (317 Phil. 604, 1995), where similar abuse in implementing a writ of execution warranted dismissal.

The Court also noted that Sheriff Nequinto failed to comply with three show cause orders. This defiance of the Court's directives formed part of the basis for his dismissal.

Practical takeaways

• Sheriffs must follow the writ strictly. The amount to be collected is the amount stated in the writ, not a different computation made by the sheriff or a party.

• Judgment obligors have options. Under Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the obligor may pay in cash, certified bank check, or another acceptable form, and may choose which property to levy.

• Returns must be complete and truthful. Section 14, Rule 39 requires the officer to report all proceedings. Omitting material facts can be treated as concealment and misconduct.

• Abuse of authority carries severe consequences. The Court may impose dismissal from service, forfeiture of benefits, and disqualification from government employment.

• Court personnel must uphold the judiciary's integrity. The conduct of the lowest court employee reflects on the entire justice system.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.