Sheriffs’ Duty to Return Writs and Accountability in Execution of Judgments

In Comendador v. Canabe (A.M. No. P-00-1364, September 19, 2002), the Supreme Court reminded sheriffs that their duty does not end with serving a writ—they must also make a prompt return to the court. The case clarifies that a sheriff who fails to file a return within the prescribed period commits gross negligence, and one who receives payment for expenses without court approval commits gross misconduct. These rules protect the integrity of execution proceedings, which the Court described as “the fruit and end of the suit and the life of the law.”

The Facts

Complainant Dioscoro Comendador was a prevailing party in Civil Case No. 41 before the Municipal Trial Court of Leyte. The court issued writs of execution on September 29, 1995, and in December 1995, and Deputy Sheriff Jorge M. Canabe received both. Yet as of February 3, 1997—more than a year later—the Clerk of Court certified that Canabe had not submitted any return of service.

In his Answer, Canabe claimed he had tried to serve the writs, that the principal defendant was in Metro Manila, and that the complainant had agreed to wait. He also said he received only P200.00 for travel expenses covering distances of over a hundred kilometers. He attached no proof to support these claims.

The Issue

The central question was whether the sheriff’s failure to make a timely return of the writs constituted administrative liability, even if there was no evidence he deliberately refused to serve them.

The Ruling

The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that the charge of willful refusal to serve the writs was not substantiated. However, the sheriff was still liable for failing to file his returns within the period required by law.

Under Section 11, Rule 39 of the then-applicable Rules of Court, a writ of execution must be made returnable to the clerk or judge within ten to sixty days after receipt. The sheriff must set forth in writing on the back of the writ the whole of his proceedings and file it with the court. Administrative Circular No. 12 also required sheriffs to submit a report to the judge within ten days from receipt of any writ.

Canabe failed to submit any return for over a year. The Court found this to be gross negligence in the performance of his duties, noting that he also ignored the Court’s own resolutions requiring him to comply.

The Court further found gross misconduct in his acceptance of P200.00 from the complainant. Under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, a sheriff must first secure court approval of estimated expenses before collecting any amount from the party requesting service. The sheriff must deposit the approved amount with the clerk of court, who then disburses it to the deputy sheriff, subject to liquidation. Canabe neither secured approval nor issued a receipt.

Why This Matters

The Court emphasized that sheriffs are officers of the court upon whom the execution of a final judgment depends. A decision left unexecuted or delayed due to a sheriff’s inefficiency renders the judgment “an empty victory” for the prevailing party. Sheriffs must act with considerable dispatch and maintain high standards of professionalism, as any act or omission that diminishes public faith in the judiciary cannot be countenanced.

Practical Takeaways

• File returns on time. A sheriff must submit a return of every writ within ten to sixty days from receipt, setting forth all proceedings taken. Failure to do so is gross negligence, even if the writ was actually served or attempted.
• Get court approval before collecting expenses. Sheriffs cannot accept cash from parties for travel or other expenses without a written approval from the presiding judge and the issuance of a receipt. Violations constitute gross misconduct.
• Document everything. Sheriffs should attach evidence of their efforts—such as proof of service, letters to assessors, or affidavits—to their returns. Unsupported claims in an Answer will not save a sheriff from liability.
• Ignoring court orders worsens the penalty. A sheriff who disregards resolutions requiring compliance risks heavier sanctions, including increased fines or dismissal.
• Execution is the life of the law. Delays in executing judgments prejudice the prevailing party and erode public confidence in the judiciary. Sheriffs must act with dispatch and professionalism at all times.

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