[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.
PANGANIBAN, J.
Facts:
In a Sworn Complaint dated April 11, 2000, Sheriff Rodolfo V. Quitalig of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of San Carlos City was charged by
Reverend Fernando Fajardo with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service and/or dereliction of duty.
The factual antecedents of the case are summarized by the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) as follows:
Complainant, who is one of the plaintiffs in a civil case entitled Spouses
Fernando Fajardo and Evangeline Perez vs. Maria Datuin, alleged that the
complaint for ejectment which they filed on July 17, 1997 was finally decided
on July 29, 1999 against the defendant. The decision was appealed to the
RTC but it was dismissed on November 29, 1999, and the decision became
final and executory. His lawyer filed a Motion for Execution, and on March 7,
2000, the Court issued a Writ of Execution which was brought by the
respondent Sheriff to the defendant Maria Datuin on March 9, 2000.
Complainant claimed that after the Writ of Execution was served, defendant
asked for a period of two (2) weeks for her to remove her personal properties
on the land. After two (2) weeks he went to Sheriff Quitalig so that the Writ of
Execution may be implemented but he was told that a restraining order was
issued, but when he asked for it, the respondent told him that he left it in the
office.
Complainant stated that on March 24, 2000, he and his lawyer went to the
court to verify whether a restraining order has really been issued but they found
out that there was none; so he told the respondent to implement the Writ of
Execution. Respondent, accompanied by a policeman and the barangay
captain went to the place where the Writ of Execution is to be implemented at
10:00 that morning but when they reached the place, respondent did not do
anything except to ask the defendant to bring out her personal properties. His
reason is that an employee of the Probation Office, Mr. Leonardo Martinez,
talked to him. At 5:30 p.m., the restraining order was brought to the place, and
the respondent told him that the writ of execution can no longer be
implemented.

Complainant asserted that respondent favored, or showed partiality in favor of

the defendant to his prejudice.
In his Comment dated October 3, 2000, respondent denied the charge. He
asked for the dismissal of the case, because he had already implemented the
Writ on August 24, 2000 as evidenced by his August 25, 2000 Report of
Service. He also pointed out that he had made an inventory of the personal
properties recovered from the subject premises. That he had done so was
attested to by defendants mother, Rufina Datuin, and witnessed by the
barangay captain and two councilors.
In its October 29, 2001 Report, the OCA found respondent to have been
negligent in the performance of his duty as a sheriff. It said thus:
Respondent was negligent in the performance of his duty as sheriff. The Writ
of Execution was issued on March 7, 2000, and was served on the judgment
obligor on March 9, 2000. Respondent admitted that the judgment obligor
promised to vacate the premises on March 29, 2000, but he was not able to
implement the Writ of Execution because on March 24, 2000, RTC, Branch
56, San Carlos, Pangasinan issued a TRO. The TRO did not ripen into an
injunction so it lapsed after twenty (20) days from the date it was issued, but
the Writ of Execution was implemented only [on] August 24, 2000 which is
more than four (4) months from the date the restraining order lapsed. It is the
duty of the sheriff to enforce a writ of execution without delay once it is given
to him unless restrained.
The Writ of Execution was finally and/or implemented only on August 24, 2000,
as shown in the Report submitted by the respondent in court. Complainant
claimed that the respondent was reluctant to implement the Writ of Execution
because a certain Leonardo Martinez intervened. This allegation of the
complainant was not denied by the respondent in his Comment. Respondent
just stated in his Comment that he implemented the Writ of Execution on
August 24, 2000, and made inventory of the personal properties pulled out
from the building and signed by defendants mother and Barangay Captain
Nestor Poquiz. Respondents deliberate refusal to traverse or refute the
charges is an admission that the allegations are true and he cannot deny them.
The OCA recommended that respondent be ordered to pay a fine of P5,000
and warned that a repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt
with more severely.
Issue:
Whether or not Sheriff Rodolfo V. Quitalig is guilty of negligence in his
implementation of the writ.

Ruling:

the same period, (3) make periodic reports to the MTCC until the judgment
was fully satisfied, and (4) furnish the parties with copies of the Reports.

YES. We agree with the OCAs findings and recommendation.

Respondents Administrative Liability
As frontline officials of the justice system, sheriffs must always strive to
maintain public trust in the performance of their duties. Having the forsworn
duty to uphold the majesty of the law, they must see to it that the final stage in
the litigation process is carried out without unnecessary delay.
A review of the records of this case reveals that respondent enforced the Writ
of Execution dated March 7, 2000 only on August 24, 2000, as shown by his
August 25, 2000 Report of Service. Within 30 days from receipt thereof and
every 30 days thereafter until the judgment is fully satisfied, a sheriff is required
by the Rules of Court to render a report on the action taken on a writ of
execution. Section 14 of Rule 39 of the Rules provides the manner in which
the execution is to be implemented, as follows:
SEC. 14. Return of Writ of Execution. The writ of execution shall be returnable
to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part
or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty days (30) days
after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the
reason therefore. Such writ shall continue in effect during the period within
which the judgment may be enforced by motion. The officer shall make a report
to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the
judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. The returns or periodic
reports shall set forth the whole of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed
with the court and copies thereof promptly furnished the parties.
Evidently, respondent was not only remiss in his implementation of the Writ,
but likewise derelict in his submission of the returns thereof.
Respondent should have immediately implemented and made a return of the
Writ after duly serving it upon the defendant on March 9, 2000. Nonetheless,
because of the request of the defendant and her promise that she would
vacate the premises on March 23, 2000, he allowed her to remain there.
However, when he came back on March 24, 2000, he was unable to enforce
the Writ because of a TRO issued by the RTC of San Carlos, Pangasinan. He
averred that he was finally able to execute the Writ on August 24, 2000 and to
submit his Return thereof on the next day.
We find respondents explanation to be utterly wanting. He is guilty of
dereliction of his duty as a sheriff, because he failed to (1) execute the Writ
within 30 days from his receipt thereof, (2) submit his Report of Service within

By his own words, respondent admitted his dereliction of duty. First, as we

have said earlier, he should have immediately executed the Writ when he
served it upon the defendant on March 9, 2000.
Second, he should have immediately reported to the MTCC that he was unable
to enforce the Writ because another court had issued a TRO enjoining him
from doing so. Third, he should have informed the parties, particularly the
plaintiff or his counsel, about his inability to enforce the Writ. Fourth, he should
have immediately enforced it twenty days after its issuance.
Fifth, he should have made periodic Reports to the MTCC until the judgment
was fully satisfied and the parties furnished a copy thereof. Sixth, within thirty
days from his receipt of the Writ, he should have promptly made his Return, a
copy of which he should have immediately furnished the parties.
Clearly, the actuations of respondent constitute disrespect, if not outright
defiance, of the MTCCs authority. In the absence of instructions to the
contrary, a sheriff has the duty to execute a Writ with reasonable celerity and
promptness in accordance with its mandate.
In several cases,[9] the Court has said that the failure to make a return of a
writ within the required period is nonfeasance.
WHEREFORE, Sheriff Rodolfo V. Quitalig is found guilty of dereliction of duty
and is ordered to pay a FINE of five thousand pesos (P5,000). Considering
that he has already retired from the service, this amount is hereby ordered
deducted from his retirement benefits.