Sheriffs Duty to Serve Notice Before Implementing Writs: Consequences of Neglect

Sheriffs occupy a unique position in the Philippine judiciary. They are the officers who carry out the courts' orders, and their faithful execution of writs is essential to the administration of justice. But this power comes with a strict duty: sheriffs must follow the procedural rules, particularly the requirement of notice, before taking action. In Mañalac v. Bidan (A.M. No. P-18-3875, October 3, 2018), the Supreme Court reminded sheriffs that failing to give the adverse party proper notice before implementing a writ constitutes simple neglect of duty, which carries administrative penalties.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose from a complaint filed by Carlos Gaudencio M. Mañalac against Hernan E. Bidan, a Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Bacolod City. Mañalac represented Philippine One Investment (SPV-AMC), Inc. (PI One), a company undergoing corporate rehabilitation before Branch 149 of the RTC Makati.

PI One claimed that it had lawfully acquired a lot through foreclosure and had been placed in possession of it by virtue of a Writ of Possession issued by the RTC of Kabankalan City. However, on May 13, 2016, the respondent sheriff, together with the former owner and other individuals, allegedly "stormed" the property and took it over. PI One's counsel protested, stating that the company had not received any court order, notice, or writ regarding the property, which was under the custody of the RTC Makati.

The sheriff defended his actions, explaining that Branch 53 of the RTC Bacolod had issued an Order on May 5, 2016, declaring the foreclosure null and void and ordering PI One to restore possession to the petitioner in a corporate rehabilitation case. He argued that he was merely performing his ministerial duty to execute a valid writ.

The Issue

The central question was whether the sheriff's implementation of the writ, without first serving notice on PI One and giving it time to comply, constituted an administrative offense.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found the sheriff guilty of simple neglect of duty. The Court emphasized that while a sheriff's duty to implement a writ is ministerial, it is equally mandatory to follow the procedure set out in the Rules of Court.

Under Section 10(c), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, when executing a judgment for the delivery or restitution of real property, the sheriff must first demand that the person against whom the judgment is rendered peaceably vacate the property within three (3) working days. Only after this demand is made, and the party refuses to comply, may the sheriff oust the occupants.

In this case, the sheriff failed to serve a copy of the writ on PI One and did not give it the opportunity to surrender possession voluntarily. He immediately took possession of the property and placed the other party in control on the same day the writ was issued. The Court noted that notice to the client, rather than to the counsel of record, is not notice at all under the law. The requirement of notice is rooted in the basic tenets of justice and fair play.

The Court cited Calaunan v. Madolaria (657 Phil. 9 [2011]), which held that a sheriff who enforces a writ without the required notice, or before the expiration of the three-day period, violates Section 10(c), Rule 39. This failure constitutes simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS).

The Penalty

Simple neglect of duty is punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. However, the Court noted that the OCA appreciated a mitigating circumstance: the sheriff's violation was not grave, and there was no showing of malice or bad faith.

The Court also recognized that suspending a sheriff could leave frontline court functions unattended. Citing precedent, it held that a fine may be imposed in lieu of suspension when the respondent performs frontline functions. Accordingly, the Court ordered the sheriff to pay a fine equivalent to one month and one day of his salary, computed at the time the decision becomes final and executory.

Practical Takeaways

• Notice is non-negotiable. Before implementing a writ for delivery or restitution of real property, a sheriff must serve the writ on the adverse party and demand peaceful vacating within three working days.
• Ministerial duty does not mean reckless haste. A sheriff's duty to execute a writ is ministerial, but it must be performed in accordance with the Rules of Court.
• Notice to the client is not notice to counsel. Service must be made on the party's counsel of record to satisfy due process.
• Administrative liability is real. Sheriffs who skip the required notice face administrative sanctions, including suspension or a fine equivalent to their salary.
• Mitigating circumstances matter. The absence of malice or bad faith can reduce the penalty, but it does not erase liability.

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