Sheriff Dismissed for 4-Year Delay in Executing Writ and Misconduct

The Supreme Court has reminded all sheriffs that they serve as frontline representatives of the judiciary and must execute court judgments with utmost dispatch. In Urbanozo v. Flora (A.M. No. P-06-2169, March 28, 2008), the Court dismissed a Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City for gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct after he failed to enforce a writ of execution for more than four years and mishandled expenses paid by the prevailing party.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Rogelio V. Urbanozo won a civil case for breach of contract and collection of sum of money against the spouses Vallejo. The trial court issued a writ of execution on February 20, 2001, which was assigned to respondent Sheriff Crisanto T. Flora.

The sheriff asked the complainant for P5,000 to cover "fees and expenses" for enforcing the writ in Cordon, Isabela. Notably, he did not issue a receipt for this amount.

Despite several follow-ups from the complainant, the sheriff did not report any progress. It was only on May 26, 2005—more than four years later—that the sheriff gave the complainant's daughter a copy of a sheriff's return dated June 15, 2001. The Office of the Clerk of Court certified that this return was submitted to the court only on May 27, 2005.

The Issue

The case presented two main questions: Did the sheriff's delay in executing the writ and submitting his return constitute gross neglect of duty? Did his handling of the P5,000 and the questionable sheriff's return amount to grave misconduct?

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found the sheriff guilty of both gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from the service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits and prejudice to reemployment in government.

Gross Neglect of Duty

The Court emphasized that sheriffs have a ministerial duty to execute writs with reasonable celerity and promptness. Under Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a sheriff must report to the court within 30 days after receiving a writ if the judgment cannot be satisfied in full, and must make periodic reports every 30 days thereafter until the judgment is satisfied.

In this case, the sheriff had the writ for more than five months before his one-year suspension began in August 2001. He went to Cordon, Isabela only once, failed to locate any property, and then simply stopped enforcing the writ. He never filed the required periodic reports. His excuse of being suspended did not hold because he had ample time before the suspension to act, and at the very least, he should have immediately informed the court that the judgment was unsatisfied.

The Court called the four-year delay "abominable" compared to the prescribed 30-day period, noting it caused irreparable damage to the complainant, who could have pursued other remedial measures.

Grave Misconduct

The Court also found the sheriff guilty of grave misconduct for violating Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. This rule requires a sheriff to:

• Estimate the expenses for executing a writ and secure court approval of the estimate
• Have the interested party deposit the amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff
• Submit a liquidation of expenses, with any unspent amount refunded to the party

The sheriff here did none of these. He simply demanded and received P5,000 directly from the complainant, issued no receipt, and never submitted any liquidation to the court.

The Court further found that the sheriff's return, supposedly dated June 15, 2001, was ante-dated—a mere afterthought submitted only after the branch clerk of court inquired about it in March 2005. The presumption of regularity of official acts did not apply given the clear evidence to the contrary.

Prior Offenses

The dismissal was also influenced by the sheriff's record. He had previously been fined P5,000 in Bilag-Rivera v. Flora for releasing a vehicle subject to a writ of attachment without court authority. He was also suspended for one year in Caguioa v. Flora for uttering derogatory remarks against a judge. The Court noted he had been sternly warned both times.

Practical Takeaways

• Sheriffs must execute writs promptly. A sheriff who receives a writ has a ministerial duty to act with reasonable celerity. Delays beyond the periods in Rule 39 of the Rules of Court constitute gross neglect of duty.
• Periodic reports are mandatory. If a judgment cannot be satisfied within 30 days, the sheriff must report to the court immediately and every 30 days thereafter. Failure to do so is a serious administrative offense.
• Sheriff's expenses follow a strict procedure. Expenses must be estimated, approved by the court, and deposited with the clerk of court—not paid directly to the sheriff. The sheriff must liquidate the amount and refund any unspent portion.
• Good faith is not a defense. A sheriff cannot claim good faith to excuse a failure to comply with clear legal duties. Sheriffs are presumed to know what is expected of them.
• Repeated offenses lead to dismissal. Administrative penalties escalate with each offense. A sheriff with prior infractions faces dismissal for a subsequent serious violation.

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