502 Phil. 1; 102 OG No. 34, 5516 (August 21, 2006)
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
The respondent denied the charges against him in his Comment[2] dated March 13, 2002. He pointed out that the wife of therein defendant voluntarily executed an affidavit[3] to disprove the charges against him. He further asserted, thus:
- Last January 21, 1999, Branch 159, Regional Trial Court of the City of Pasig, rendered a decision (Civil Case No. 67026), affirming the ruling of Branch 68, Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, in Civil Case No. 4464, awarding both moral and exemplary damages to the plaintiff;
- After the decision became final and executory, a Writ of Execution was issued on March 10, 2000;
- From that time up to the present, Plaintiff made several oral requests to the sheriff, respondent Benjamin Cabusao, and the court staff to have the writ enforced;
- The only reason given by the court staff for failure to execute the writ was the Sheriff's inability to accommodate the writ due to the number of decisions sought to be executed by the Sheriff;
- Last August 28, 2001, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion for the Issuance of an Order to Compel the Sheriff to Enforce the Writ of Execution;
- Plaintiff has not received any written Reply as regards his Motion.
- Last November 26, 2001, counsel of Plaintiff was finally able to talk with the Sheriff and was informed that the Writ was unsuccessfully served thrice since the defendant has already abandoned his known address;
- Upon query with the Court staff, counsel of Plaintiff, found out that no report explaining the failure to serve the writ was filed by the Sheriff with the Court in violation of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12;
...
- Furthermore, the Sheriff, despite the constant follow-up of the Plaintiff has not made any contact with the latter nor with his counsel in order to update them of the status of the case.
- Had the Sheriff served the Writ earlier and within the period prescribed by law, or at least, had informed the plaintiff or counsel of plaintiff at the earliest possible time, as regards the failure to serve the writ, then Plaintiff would not have suffered the agony of useless waiting, and could have immediately acted on the matter so as to prevent the apparent escape from liability of the respondent.[1]
In its Report[5] dated October 1, 2002, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the matter be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that the respondent be fined in the amount of P5,000.00 for the delay in the implementation of the writ of execution in the above civil case, and failure to submit a return of the writ of execution as required by Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
- On August 27, 2001, the undersigned went to the given address of Cesar Patindol but he could not be located and his whereabouts unknown. To obviate any possibility of cover-up, the undersigned did not introduce himself as a Sheriff when he was able to talk to Patindol's wife, but even the wife did not know of Patindol's whereabouts;
- The following day, August 28, 2001, [complainant] Ramon Reyes filed an Urgent Motion before the Court praying that the undersigned be directed to implement the writ of execution. Mr. Reyes did not even bother to first check or verify the facts before filing the said Motion, which is most unfair, as the Motion tended to create the impression that the undersigned was remiss in his duty, a far cry, however, from the truth;
- On August 31, 2001, the undersigned again proceeded to the residence of Cesar Patindol but he was informed by the neighbors that Cesar Patindol is no longer seen in the vicinity, a fact which was subsequently confirmed by Patindol's wife, who informed the undersigned that her husband abandoned them almost a year ago;
Nevertheless, the undersigned gave Patindol's wife a copy of the writ of execution and advised her to settle her husband's obligation;- On September 12, 2001, the undersigned returned to Patindol's residence and again inquired about Cesar Patindol. Patindol's wife acknowledged the obligation and said that she and her family are willing to pay the obligation of her husband;
- That on September 24, 2001, the undersigned accompanied Mr. Reyes' counsel Atty. Robert Jay Quitain, to Patindol's residence in order for Mr. Reyes' counsel and Patindol's wife to make arrangement for the settlement of Patindol's obligation;
- On November 14, 2002, the undersigned again accompanied Mr. Reyes' lawyer to Patindol's residence and the lawyer informed Patindol's wife that his client, Ramon Reyes, refused to accept the settlement of the obligation on installment basis;
- On February 20, 2002, the undersigned, in the presence of Mr. Reyes' counsel, levied upon one (1) unit computer machine, Sampo, brand new, Millenium Edition, with mouse and computer, and scheduled the sale thereof at public auction on March 6, 2002 at the Justice Hall, Pasig City;
- On March 6, 2002, at exactly 10:30 a.m., the aforesaid computer was auctioned in the presence of Mr. Reyes and his counsel. The winning bidder was Mr. Reyes and a Certificate of Award/Sale was issued to Mr. Reyes in the presence of his counsel, copy of which is attached hereto as Annex 2.[4]
It is mandatory for a sheriff to make a return of the writ of execution to the clerk or judge issuing it. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reason or reasons therefore. The officer is, likewise, tasked to 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.[10]In this case, the writ of execution was issued on March 10, 2000, but as admitted by the respondent himself, his first attempt to implement it was made more than 17 months later, or on August 27, 2001. Such delay in the implementation of the writ cannot be countenanced, for as pointed out by the OCA, the "execution [of the judgment] is the fruit and end of the suit and the life of the law."