AM P 02 1535; (March, 2003) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-02-1535. March 28, 2003.
FERNANDO FAJARDO, complainant, vs. SHERIFF RODOLFO V. QUITALIG, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Carlos City, Pangasinan, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Fernando Fajardo was a prevailing party in an ejectment case. A Writ of Execution was issued on March 7, 2000. Respondent Sheriff Rodolfo Quitalig served the writ on March 9, 2000. The judgment obligor requested two weeks to vacate. On March 24, 2000, when complainant followed up, the sheriff initially claimed a restraining order was issued but could not produce it. Verification revealed no such order existed. That same day, the sheriff went to the property with a policeman and a barangay captain but failed to execute the writ, allegedly due to an intervention by a third party. A temporary restraining order was later presented at 5:30 p.m., halting the execution.
The sheriff finally implemented the writ on August 24, 2000, over four months after the temporary restraining order, which was effective for only twenty days, had lapsed. In his defense, the sheriff merely stated he had implemented the writ and submitted an inventory, but he did not specifically deny the allegations of undue delay and outside intervention raised by the complainant.
ISSUE
Whether respondent sheriff is administratively liable for dereliction of duty for the unreasonable delay in implementing a writ of execution.
RULING
Yes, the respondent sheriff is guilty of dereliction of duty. Sheriffs, as frontline officials, have a sworn duty to implement court orders promptly and efficiently to maintain public trust in the judicial system. The Rules of Court mandate that a sheriff must execute a writ without delay and submit periodic reports every thirty days until satisfaction of the judgment.
The Court found the delay unreasonable and unjustified. The temporary restraining order, which lasted only twenty days, expired in April 2000. Yet, the sheriff did not execute the writ until August 24, 2000. His failure to act for over four months after the legal impediment ceased constituted gross neglect. Furthermore, his deliberate refusal to refute the specific allegation of outside intervention in his Comment was deemed an admission of its truth. His inaction violated the explicit duty to enforce writs forthwith. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), to be deducted from his retirement benefits.