G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-07-2391, February 12, 2009
Case Parties: JENNIFER B. DOMINGO, Complainant, vs. SILVINO R. MALANA, JR. and CIPRIANO B. VERBO, JR., both Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Tuguegarao City, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Jennifer B. Domingo charged respondents Sheriffs Silvino R. Malana, Jr. and Cipriano B. Verbo, Jr. with failure to fully implement a writ of demolition in Civil Case No. 079. The writ was referred to them in November 2000. Respondents scheduled the implementation for January 24, 2001, citing a full November schedule and a no-demolition policy in December. On January 24, 2001, demolition commenced but was discontinued by respondent Verbo in the afternoon, leaving the house of defendant Willie de Guzman undemolished. Respondents allegedly promised to continue the demolition on January 27, 2001, then on February 8 or 9, 2001, and later in March 2001. The demolition of de Guzman’s house was completed only on March 9, 2001. In their defense, respondents claimed they informed de Guzman they would proceed in the absence of a restraining order, denied committing to specific dates in January or February, and stated they set the completion for March 8 or 9, 2001, due to a heavy load of cases. An investigation and review of their accomplishment reports revealed their duties primarily involved preparing and serving notices in Tuguegarao City, contradicting their claim of a heavy execution caseload.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Sheriffs Malana, Jr. and Verbo, Jr. are administratively liable for delay in the performance of their duty in implementing the writ of demolition.

RULING

Yes, respondents are guilty of delay in the performance of their duty. The Court agreed with the findings of the Investigating Judge and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that respondents failed to promptly execute the writ of demolition. The house of Willie de Guzman was demolished only on March 9, 2001, more than a month after the initial implementation on January 24-25, 2001, without valid justification, as their accomplishment reports belied their claim of a heavy caseload. This failure constituted a violation of the rule against failure to act promptly on public transactions. Considering respondent Malana, Jr.’s previous suspension for simple neglect of duty in another administrative case (A.M. No. P-07-2290), the Court imposed upon him a suspension of two months without pay with a stern warning. Regarding respondent Verbo, Jr., the case was dismissed and considered closed due to his death on May 10, 2008.