AM 97 1235; (January, 1997) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-97-1235. January 30, 1997. ERNITO PORTES, complainant, vs. DEPUTY PROVINCIAL SHERIFF CESARIO G. TEPACE, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Ernito Portes was declared the winner in an election protest for Punong Barangay by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Allen, Northern Samar. The court granted his motion for execution pending appeal and issued a corresponding writ. Respondent Deputy Provincial Sheriff Cesario G. Tepace was tasked with serving the writ. However, Tepace repeatedly failed to implement it. His initial refusal was on the pretext of a trip to Manila. After finally accepting the writ and scheduling its service for January 16, 1995, he again failed to act, citing illness. Subsequently, he deferred service due to the protestee’s filing of a petition for certiorari and a motion for reconsideration, despite the absence of any court-issued injunction or restraining order. The MTC eventually dismissed the protestee’s petition and explicitly ordered Tepace to serve the writ, but he still did not comply.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Deputy Provincial Sheriff Cesario G. Tepace is administratively liable for his failure to promptly execute a valid writ of execution.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable for neglect of duty. The Supreme Court emphasized that the duty of a sheriff to execute a final and executory judgment is ministerial and mandatory. A writ of execution is the final stage of litigation, and its enforcement is crucial to the integrity of the judicial process. Tepace’s various excuses for non-compliance—including an alleged trip, illness, and pending incidents that did not legally suspend the writ’s enforceability—were unjustified. The Court found that the protestee’s filing of a petition for certiorari and a motion for reconsideration did not automatically stay execution, especially in the absence of a restraining order. Tepace’s inaction constituted a dereliction of his sworn duty to implement court orders with reasonable celerity. His conduct undermined the efficacy of the court’s judgment and betrayed the trust reposed in him as an officer of the court. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) and issued a stern warning.