Sheriff's Duty in Writ Execution: Avoiding Neglect and Misconduct

The Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Alentajan v. De Jesus (A.M. No. P-23-105) serves as a stern reminder to all court sheriffs: the faithful execution of writs is a ministerial duty that admits no delay, and receiving money from litigants—even without personal solicitation—can result in administrative sanctions. The case clarifies the boundaries of a sheriff's conduct and the penalties for failing to meet the exacting standards of judicial office.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan obtained an Alias Writ of Execution dated September 15, 2017, directing Sheriff Reyner S. De Jesus of Branch 109, Regional Trial Court, Pasay City to implement a judgment. The writ commanded the sheriff to enforce the decision and, if necessary, levy and sell the judgment obligor's properties, with a return of the writ required within sixty days.

In May 2018, De Jesus collected PHP 35,000.00 from the complainant, purportedly for the publication and posting of the notice of auction sale. However, as of the filing of the complaint in July 2018—nearly ten months after the writ was issued—De Jesus had not implemented the writ and could no longer be located. The sheriff denied the allegations, claiming he had not yet received a copy of the writ and that the money was only PHP 32,000.00, which he said he eventually returned.

The Issue

The central question was whether Sheriff De Jesus should be held administratively liable for his failure to implement the writ and for receiving money from the winning litigant.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found De Jesus guilty of three separate administrative offenses: gross neglect of duty, violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, and simple misconduct. The Court imposed fines totaling PHP 430,000.00.

Gross Neglect of Duty

The Court emphasized that sheriffs "play an important role in the administration of justice" and are tasked to execute final judgments. Once a writ is placed in their hands, it is their ministerial duty to proceed with "reasonable celerity and promptness." Citing Holasca v. Pagunsan, Jr., the Court noted that litigants should not need to "follow-up" on a sheriff's implementation of a writ.

De Jesus's excuse—that he had not received a copy of the writ—was deemed "highly improbable," considering the writ originated from the same court where he was stationed. The Court held that his ten-month inordinate delay constituted a "flagrant and culpable refusal" of his duties.

Violation of Supreme Court Rules, Directives, and Circulars

The Court also found De Jesus liable for failing to submit monthly reports on the status of writs, as required by Administrative Circular No. 12, which sets out guidelines and procedures for the service and execution of court writs. This circular directs sheriffs to submit a monthly report indicating the number of writs and processes issued and served, as well as those unserved, with explanations for any unserved writs. His failure to do so for nearly ten months constituted a separate administrative offense.

Simple Misconduct, Not Gross Misconduct

Significantly, the Court rejected the recommendation to hold De Jesus liable for gross misconduct. For gross misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules must be manifest. Here, the sheriff neither personally requested nor personally received the envelope containing money—another court employee received it and turned it over to him. The Court also noted that his assertion of returning the money, though belated, was not seriously disputed.

Nevertheless, the Court found that De Jesus violated the Code of Conduct of Court Personnel, which prohibits court personnel from accepting any fee or remuneration beyond what they are entitled to receive in their official capacity. By receiving the envelope instead of outright rejecting it, he committed simple misconduct. The exact provision number is not specified in the decision text available in the library.

Practical Takeaways

• Writ execution is ministerial and urgent. Sheriffs must implement writs with dispatch and cannot use non-receipt of a copy as an excuse when the writ originates from their own court.
• Monthly reports are mandatory. Failure to submit reports under Administrative Circular No. 12 is a separate administrative offense, not merely a paperwork lapse.
• Never accept money from litigants. Sheriffs may only collect lawful sheriff's fees, and all payments for execution should be directed to the Clerk of Court. Receiving money, even without solicitation, risks administrative liability.
• Prior offenses matter. The Court imposed heavier fines because De Jesus had prior administrative liabilities, demonstrating that a clean record is essential for court personnel.
• Separate acts, separate penalties. Under Rule 140, each distinct offense in a single proceeding carries its own penalty.

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