Sheriff Duties in Executing Writs: Notice to Vacate and Money Judgment Enforcement

The Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Mendoza v. Doroni (A.M. No. P-04-1872) reminds sheriffs that executing a court writ is a purely ministerial duty that must strictly follow the Rules of Court. The case clarifies two key obligations: serving a three-day notice to vacate before ejecting occupants, and fully enforcing money judgments even when the judgment creditors cannot be located. For litigants and legal practitioners, the ruling underscores that sheriffs cannot shortcut execution procedures, no matter how clear the court’s directive appears.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose from a forcible entry dispute. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of complainant Manuel Mendoza and issued a writ of execution, which the MeTC sheriff enforced. The defendants appealed, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC decision, dismissing the forcible entry complaint. However, the RTC ordered the defendants to pay P15,000 each to the owners of four destroyed structures on the property — a total of P60,000.

When the RTC issued a writ of execution, Sheriff Angel Doroni served it on the same day it was handed to him. He immediately turned over possession of the property to the defendants without first serving a notice to vacate. He also failed to collect the P60,000 money judgment, claiming he could not locate the four structure owners.

The Issue

The Supreme Court addressed whether the sheriff committed misconduct by: (1) enforcing the writ without serving a prior notice to vacate, and (2) failing to enforce the money judgment in favor of the structure owners.

The Ruling: Notice to Vacate Is Mandatory

The Court found the sheriff guilty of misconduct and simple neglect of duty. Under Section 10(c), Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, when executing a judgment for delivery or restitution of real property, the sheriff must demand that the person against whom the judgment is rendered — and all persons claiming rights under that person — peacefully vacate the property within three working days. Only after this period may the sheriff oust the occupants with the assistance of peace officers if necessary.

The Court emphasized that even when a decision is "immediately executory," this does not mean instant execution. The three-day notice period cannot be dispensed with. A sheriff who enforces a writ without the required notice, or before the three-day period expires, violates Rule 39 and commits misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

In this case, the sheriff served the writ and turned over possession on the very same day it was issued. He gave the occupants no opportunity to vacate peacefully, violating the rudiments of justice and fair play.

The Ruling: Money Judgments Must Be Fully Enforced

The Court also held that the sheriff failed in his duty to fully implement the writ. The RTC decision required the defendants to pay P15,000 to each of the four structure owners. The sheriff’s excuse — that he could not locate the owners — was untenable.

Section 9, Rule 39 provides a clear remedy: if the judgment obligee (the person entitled to payment) is not present to receive payment, the judgment obligor must deliver the payment to the executing sheriff. The sheriff must then turn over the amounts to the clerk of court on the same day, or deposit them in a fiduciary account in the nearest government depository bank.

The Court noted that the sheriff should have collected the P60,000 before turning over possession of the property. The defendants, who had themselves moved for execution, would have been willing to pay. By neglecting to do so, the sheriff failed to implement the writ fully, to the prejudice of the judgment creditors.

Practical Takeaways

• Sheriffs must strictly follow Rule 39. Execution is ministerial, but the procedure is mandatory. Deviating from it constitutes misconduct.
• The three-day notice to vacate is non-negotiable. Even "immediately executory" judgments require the three-working-day period before physical removal of occupants.
• Money judgments must be enforced even if creditors cannot be found. Sheriffs should collect the amount and turn it over to the clerk of court or deposit it in a fiduciary bank account.
• Sheriffs cannot selectively execute writs. Failing to enforce any part of a judgment — whether possession or monetary awards — disserves the judiciary and erodes public faith in the courts.
• Litigants should know their rights. If a sheriff enforces a writ without proper notice or fails to enforce a money judgment, the affected party may file an administrative complaint.

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