Vargas vs. Primo

A sheriff has a strictly ministerial duty to execute writs of execution with reasonable celerity and promptness according to their mandate, and cannot refuse to perform this duty or exercise discretion over the execution based on the mere filing of a motion for reconsideration absent a restraining order or instructions to the contrary; such failure constitutes simple neglect of duty.

The case arose from Civil Case No. 186-0-97 entitled "Fidela Y. Vargas v. Sps. Salvacion Yap-Lee," where the complainant emerged as the prevailing party. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72 of Olongapo City issued a writ of execution to satisfy a monetary judgment for unpaid rents and attorney's fees, directing the sheriff to levy on the defendant's properties if payment was not made.

• Complainant Fidela Y. Vargas is the prevailing party in Civil Case No. 186-0-97 entitled "Fidela Y. Vargas v. Sps. Salvacion Yap-Lee" pending before the RTC, Branch 72, Olongapo City.
• On April 25, 2006, the RTC issued a writ of execution ordering the sheriff to demand from the defendant the payment of: (a) rent of P5,000.00 per month for the first two years; (b) P6,000.00 per month thereafter from January 1998 until the defendant vacates the property; and (c) P35,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs of suit, less the amount of P76,491.45 previously deposited in court.
• The writ mandated that in default of such payment, the sheriff should levy on the defendant's goods and chattels, or on her lands and buildings if personal properties are insufficient.
• The writ of execution was received by respondent's office on May 30, 2006, and was served on defendant Salvacion Yap-Lee on June 21, 2006.
• On July 4, 2006, the RTC issued an Order directing the Clerk of Court/Ex-Officio Sheriff and/or the sheriff-in-charge to immediately issue a Notice to Vacate to the defendant upon receipt thereof.
• In his Sheriff's Final Return dated July 24, 2006, respondent reported partial satisfaction of the judgment through a check deposit of P57,800.00 (representing P24,000.00 balance for 1997-1998 and P35,000.00 attorney's fees, less P1,200.00 withholding tax), which amount was insufficient to cover the full judgment.
• Respondent deferred the issuance of the notice to vacate due to the pendency of a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Lee regarding the July 4, 2006 Order.
• Respondent failed to levy on the defendant's properties to satisfy the remaining judgment, invoking the defendant's willingness to render payment.
• Complainant sent a telegram dated June 29, 2006 demanding the immediate return of the writ if Lee did not vacate the premises.
• This is respondent's third administrative offense, having been previously fined in Grayda v. Primo for simple misconduct and neglect of duty, reprimanded in Office of the Court Administrator v. Labitag for discourtesy, and fined in Montemayor v. Primo for neglect of duty.

• Respondent committed gross disobedience to court orders by failing to fully and properly execute the writ of execution dated April 25, 2006.
• Respondent was guilty of gross dereliction of duty or gross negligence by making a hasty return that failed to mention the date of service on the defendant, failing to require documentary proof of rental payments sufficient to cover the judgment amount, and submitting the return without providing a summary of the total judgment amount.
• Respondent usurped the court's functions by causing a BIR deduction from the payment which was not ordered in either the writ of execution or the order to vacate.
• Respondent committed grave abuse of discretion by deliberately not serving the court's order to vacate the premises and by failing to levy on Lee's property to satisfy the judgment without including in his return an explanation why no levy was made.

• His office received the writ only on May 30, 2006, and he served it on June 21, 2006 as shown in his initial return, demonstrating reasonable dispatch.
• The decision regarding the legal rate of rent was unclear and should have been clarified by the complainant herself; his duty is strictly to enforce court processes and does not include requiring the judgment obligor to present proof of rental payments or making summaries of judgment amounts.
• He did not receive the order to vacate initially; when he received the July 4, 2006 Order, he held its execution in abeyance because the defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, giving him the impression that the matter was not yet final and executory.
• He did not neglect his duty as he partially satisfied the judgment in less than two months from receipt of the writ through the deposit of P57,800.00.
• It was improper to levy on Lee's property because she showed willingness to render payment of the judgment amount.
• He believed it impossible to comply with the telegram demanding immediate return of the writ if Lee did not vacate, as immediate removal was not ordered in the decision itself.
• He did not usurp the court's function regarding the BIR deduction; the BIR form reflecting the deduction was already attached to the check when Lee entrusted it to him.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether respondent Sheriff Noel G. Primo committed simple neglect of duty in his execution of the writ of execution and related court orders.
  • Whether the penalty of one month suspension recommended by the OCA is appropriate given respondent's prior administrative record involving similar offenses.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court found respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and signifying a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference, classified as a less grave offense.
  • The Court held that a sheriff has a ministerial duty to execute writs with reasonable celerity and promptness according to their mandate, and possesses no discretion whether or not to execute a writ unless restrained by a court order.
  • The Court ruled that the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration does not justify a sheriff's refusal to perform his ministerial duty to issue a notice to vacate or to levy on properties; absent a restraining order, he must proceed with execution.
  • While the penalty for a second offense of simple neglect of duty is dismissal from the service, and this is respondent's third offense for neglect of duty, the Court tempered the penalty to six months suspension without pay considering humanitarian reasons and the absence of bad faith, though stiffer than the OCA's recommended one month.

• Ministerial Duty of Sheriffs — Sheriffs have a sworn responsibility to serve writs of execution with utmost dispatch and reasonable celerity; they have no discretion whether or not to execute a writ unless restrained by a court order. Any act deviating from the procedure laid down in the Rules of Court constitutes misconduct.
• Execution as the Life of the Law — The execution of a judgment is the fruit of the suit and is the life of the law; a judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party.
• Simple Neglect of Duty — Defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and signifying a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference; classified as a less grave offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

• "When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate."
• "As a sheriff, respondent has no discretion whether or not to execute a writ."
• "The filing of a motion for reconsideration does not justify respondent's refusal to perform what was otherwise his ministerial duty."
• "The execution of a judgment is the fruit of the suit and is the life of the law. A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party."
• "Sheriffs, who are charged to carry out this important task, play an important role in the administration of justice. And as agents of the law, high standards are expected of them."

• Punzalan v. Macalisang, A.M. No. P-06-2268 — Cited for the doctrine that sheriffs must proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute writs according to their mandate.
• Zarate v. Untalan, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1584 — Cited for the principle that sheriffs must act with dispatch and that simple neglect of duty carries specific penalties under the Uniform Rules.
• Bautista v. Orque, Jr., A.M. No. P-05-2099 — Cited for the rule that sheriffs have no discretion whether or not to execute a writ and that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not excuse refusal to perform ministerial duty.
• Alvarez v. Martin, 458 Phil. 85 — Cited for the principle that sheriffs must ensure execution of judgments is not unduly delayed.
• Grayda v. Primo, A.M. No. P-04-1897 — Respondent's prior case where he was fined P10,000.00 for simple misconduct and neglect of duty.
• Montemayor v. Primo, A.M. No. P-07-2381 — Respondent's prior case where he was fined P2,000.00 for neglect of duty.
• Reyes-Macabeo v. Valle, 448 Phil. 583 — Cited for the Court's discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy.
• Donton v. Loria, A.M. No. P-03-1684 — Cited regarding the absence of bad faith as a mitigating circumstance in administrative proceedings.

• Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999), Section 52, B.1 — Defines simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense.
• Rules of Court, provisions on Execution of Judgments — Referenced regarding the procedure for execution, levy, and the ministerial nature of a sheriff's duties in satisfying judgments.