Sheriffs Held Accountable for Neglecting Writs of Demolition

The Supreme Court has long emphasized that a sheriff's duty in executing a judgment is purely ministerial—meaning it must be done, not deliberated upon. In a 2003 administrative case, the Court reminded court personnel that personal beliefs, procedural shortcuts, or pending motions do not excuse a sheriff from implementing a lawful writ with reasonable speed. The ruling serves as a clear warning to sheriffs and process servers that neglect of duty carries administrative penalties.

The Case: A Delayed Demolition

The case arose from an ejectment suit in Calamba, Laguna. After the Municipal Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendants appealed and posted a supersedeas bond. The plaintiffs then moved for execution pending appeal, which the court granted. A writ of execution was issued, but Sheriff IV Edgardo M. Torres returned it unsatisfied, saying the defendants refused to vacate the property.

The plaintiffs then obtained a writ of demolition dated October 15, 1998. The sheriff received it the same day, but he did not implement it. Instead, he held off after the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration. Meanwhile, Junior Process Server Adriano A. Vergara served a copy of the writ only to the Office of the Provincial Sheriff, not to the parties themselves.

The plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint for obstruction of justice, alleging the sheriff deliberately refused to enforce the writ and even demanded P15,000 for implementation expenses. They also claimed the process server's failure to serve them a copy of the order prejudiced their case.

The Sheriff's Defense: Not Moot, Not Excused

The sheriff argued the case had become moot because the writ was eventually fully satisfied in February 1999—the house was demolished and possession turned over to the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court rejected this defense. The fact that the writ was eventually implemented did not erase the sheriff's earlier neglect.

More importantly, the Court ruled that the pendency of a motion for reconsideration was no excuse. Citing settled doctrine, the Court reiterated that a sheriff has no discretion whether to execute a judgment. In the absence of any instruction to the contrary, it is the sheriff's duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness.

The Court noted the writ required a return within 20 days, or by November 4, 1998. The sheriff did not implement it before expiration. A letter from the defendants' lawyer even pointed out that the writ had already expired when served. The Court found that the deferment unduly favored the defendants and subjected the plaintiffs to prolonged agony.

However, the Court found no sufficient evidence to support the allegation that the sheriff demanded and received money from the complainant.

The Process Server's Defense: Ignorance Is No Excuse

Junior Process Server Vergara admitted he did not serve copies of the writ to the parties, believing that service to the Provincial Sheriff was sufficient. The Court was appalled. It held that this was a clear case of incompetence and inefficiency, and that good faith and lack of malice would not excuse him. Otherwise, the judiciary would be filled with personnel acting on personal beliefs rather than established rules.

The Ruling

The Court found both respondents guilty of dereliction of duty and ordered each to pay a fine of P2,000, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• A sheriff's duty to execute a judgment is ministerial; there is no room for discretion or delay once a writ is issued.
• A pending motion for reconsideration does not automatically suspend a writ of demolition or execution unless a court issues a restraining order or other directive.
• Sheriffs must comply with the return period stated in the writ and act with reasonable promptness.
• Process servers must serve copies of orders and writs to the parties, not merely to other offices.
• Ignorance of proper procedure, or a mistaken personal belief, does not excuse court personnel from administrative liability.

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