624 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Mortavs.Bagagan
*
A.M.No.MTJ031513.November12,2003.

Spouses JAIME and PURIFICACION MORTA, complainants, vs.

Judge ANTONIO C. BAGAGAN, Municipal Trial Court,
Guinobatan, Albay and Sheriff DANILO O. MATIAS, Regional
TrialCourt,Branch14,Ligao,Albay,respondents.

Courts Judges Judgments Writs of Execution Execution of a final

judgment may be refused when there has been a change in the situation of
the parties that would make its execution inequitable.We agree with the
OCA that respondent judge acted correctly in not issuing a writ of
execution/possession. His action was consistent with the Decision of this
CourtinGRNo.123417affirmingthatoftheMTCastodamages.Besides,
the latters Order directing defendants not to molest complainants in their
peaceful possession was rendered moot when they were ousted from the
disputed lots by virtue of the final and executory judgments in Civil Case
No. 1920 and DARAB Case No. 2413. Indeed, the execution of a final
judgment may be refused, as in this case, when there has been a change in
thesituationofthepartiesthatwouldmakeitsexecutioninequitable.
Same Same Speedy Disposition of Cases It is well settled that the
unexplained failure of judges to decide cases and resolve motions and
incidents within the reglementary period of 90 days, which is fixed by the
Constitution and the law, renders them administratively liable.Thedelay
in the resolution of complainants Motion, however, is an altogether
differentmatter.TheCodeofJudicialConductenjoinstrialcourtjudges,as

_______________

*THIRDDIVISION.

625

VOL.415,NOVEMBER12,2003 625

Mortavs.Bagagan
paragons of justice in the first instance, to dispose of the courts business
promptly and to decide cases and motions within the required periods.
Section 15(1) of Article VIII of the Constitution mandates them to do so
within three months from the date of submission for decision or final
resolution. This Court, through Administrative Circular No. 1, also
specifically requires all of them to act promptly on all motions and
interlocutory matters pending before their courts. Hence, it is wellsettled
that the unexplained failure of judges to decide cases and resolve motions
and incidents within the reglementary period of 90 days, which is fixed by
the Constitution and the law, renders them administratively liable. We have
stressedoftenenoughthatdelayintheadministrationofjusticeundermines
the faith of the people in the judiciary, which is expected to hear their
supplications promptly. Delay reinforces in the mind of litigants the
impression that the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly. As the time
honoredprinciplegoes,justicedelayedisjusticedenied.
SameSameSameSheriffsReturnContempt While the absence of
theSheriffsReturnofServiceoftheWritofDemolitionwasavalidreason
todeferactiononthecontemptmotionattheoutset,itwascertainlynotan
excuse for the prolonged inaction.In this case, respondent judge never
resolvedtheMotion,filedonJune6,2000,tociteDefendantOccidentalfor
contempt. While it is true that the former immediately conducted an ocular
inspection of the area to determine if the Motion had any basis, this act
served only to mitigate his infraction, but not absolve him from it. The
Sheriffs Return of Service of the Writ of Demolition issued in Civil Case
No. 1920 would have clarified whether or not Occidental had already been
fully restored in possession. But while its absence was a valid reason to
defer action on the contempt Motion at the outset, it was certainly not an
excusefortheprolongedinaction.
SameSheriffsWritsofExecutionAdecisionthatisleftunexecutedor
delayed indefinitely because of the sheriffs inefficiency or negligence
remainsanemptyvictoryonthepartoftheprevailingparty.Withrespect
tothechargesagainstrespondentsheriff,weagreewiththeOCAthathewas
remiss in his duty to implement the Writ fully in Civil Case Nos. 481 and
482. Time and time again, we have impressed upon those tasked to
implement court orders and processes to see to it that the final stage in the
litigation processthe execution of judgmentbe carried out promptly.
They should exert every effort and indeed consider it their bounden duty to
doso,inordertoensurethespeedyandefficientadministrationofjustice.A
decision that is left unexecuted or delayed indefinitely because of the
sheriffs inefficiency or negligence remains an empty victory on the part of
theprevailingparty.Forthisreason,anyinordinatedelayintheexecutionof
judgmentistrulydeplorableandcannotbecountenancedbytheCourt.

626

626 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 Mortavs.Bagagan

SameSameSameAllsheriffsanddeputysheriffsshallsubmittothe
judge concerned a report on actions taken on all writs and processes
assigned to them within ten days from receipt.There is no mistaking the
mandatorycharacteroftheperiodprescribedunderSection14ofRule39of
the Revised Rules of Court on the Return of a Writ of Execution, which
reads:SEC.14.Return of writ of execution.The writ of execution shall
bereturnabletothecourtissuingitimmediatelyafterthejudgmenthasbeen
satisfiedinpartorinfull.Ifthejudgmentcannotbesatisfiedinfullwithin
thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the
courtandstatethereasontherefor.Suchwritshallcontinueineffectduring
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
oftheproceedingstaken,andshallbefiledwiththecourtandcopiesthereof
promptly furnished the parties. A similar rule is stated in Administrative
Circular No. 12 dated October 1, 1985, and incorporated in the Manual for
ClerksofCourt.AccordingtothisCircular,allsheriffsanddeputysheriffs
shallsubmittothejudgeconcernedareportonactionstakenonallwritsand
processesassignedtothemwithin10daysfromreceipt.
Same Same Same Heavy workload cannot absolve a sheriff from
administrative sanctionsas an officer of the court, he should at all times
show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of his duties.
The excuse proffered by respondent sheriffheavy workloadcannot
absolve him from administrative sanctions. As an officer of the court, he
shouldatalltimesshowahighdegreeofprofessionalismintheperformance
of his duties. He has failed to observe that degree of dedication required of
himasasheriff.Thechargeofconnivanceis,however,dismissedforlackof
basis.
SameSame Under the circumstances of the case, the Court finds it
inadvisable to suspend the respondent sheriff, considering that his work
wouldbeleftunattendedinhisabsence.AstoSheriffMatias,wefindhim
guilty of simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense under the Revised
UniformRulesonAdministrativeCasesintheCivilService.Thisinfraction
ispunishablebyasuspensionofonemonthandonedaytosixmonths.But
under the circumstances, we find it inadvisable to suspend respondent
sheriff, considering that his work would be left unattended in his absence.
Instead,weadoptourpreviousrulinginAquinov.Lavadiaimposingafine
equivalent to his onemonth salary, so that he can finally implement the
subjectWritandperformhisotherduties.

627

VOL.415,NOVEMBER12,2003 627
 Mortavs.Bagagan

ADMINISTRATIVEMATTERintheSupremeCourt.Gross
IgnoranceoftheLaw,NegligenceandConnivancewithDefendants.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
RodolfoR.Paulinoforcomplainants.

PANGANIBAN,J.:

Unreasonable delay in resolving motions opens a judge to

administrative sanctions. Likewise, a sheriff is administratively
liablefordelayedimplementationofawritofexecutionandfailure
to render the required reports thereon. These are necessary lessons
from the timehonored principle that justice delayed is justice
denied.

TheCaseandtheFacts
1
In their Administrative Complaint dated July 26, 2001, Spouses
Jaime and Purificacion Morta, Sr. charged Judge Antonio C.
BagaganoftheMunicipalTrialCourt(MTC)ofGuinobatan,Albay
withgrossignoranceofthelaw,incompetence,biasanddelay.They
also indicted Sheriff Danilo O. Matias of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC)ofLigao,Albay(Branch14)withgrossignoranceofthelaw,
negligence and connivance with the defendants in Civil Case Nos.
481 and 482 (MTC, Guinobatan, Albay). The Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) summarized the factual antecedents as
follows:

xxx[In]aComplaintAffidavitdatedJuly26,2001(withenclosures),xx
x [Spouses] Jaime and Purificacion Morta[,] through their counsel[,] Atty.
Rodolfo R. Paulino[,] charg[ed] [Respondent] Judge Antonio C. Bagagan
andSheriffDaniloO.Matiaswithgrossignoranceofthelawandprocedure,
incompetence, bias and delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. 481,
entitledJaimeMorta,Sr.andPurificacionPadillavs.JamieOccidentaland
Atty. Mariano Baranda, Jr., for Damages with Prayer for a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, and Civil Case No. 482 entitled Jaime Morta, Sr.
and Purificacion Padilla vs. Jamie Occidental, Atty. Mariano Baranda, Jr.
and Daniel Corral, for Damages with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction.

_______________

1Rollo,pp.29signedbyAtty.RodolfoR.Paulino.

628

628 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 Mortavs.Bagagan

Complainants, who are the plaintiffs in the aforementioned civil cases,

allege[d] that on March 29, 1994[,] the Municipal Trial Court [of]
Guinobatan,Albayrenderedadecisionintheirfavor.Thedecretalportionof
thedecisionreads:

WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoingconsiderations,judgmentisrenderedinfavor
oftheplaintiffsandagainstthedefendantsinbothcasesasfollows:

1) Orderingthedefendantsnottomolestanddisturbthepeacefulpossessionof
theplaintiffsinthelandsinquestionsituatedatSanRaael,Guinobatan
2) Condemning the defendants in Civil Case No. 481 to jointly and severally
paytheplaintiffsthetotalamountofP8,130.00representingthevalueofthe
coconuts,pilinutsandanahawleavesandforthedestroyedplants
3) Ordering the defendants in Civil Case No. 481 jointly and severally to
reimbursetheplaintiffstheamountofP202.00aslegalexpensesincurredin
filingtheirsuit
4) Condemning the defendants in Civil Case No. 482 jointly and severally to
paytheplaintiffsthetotalamountofP9,950.00representingthevalueofthe
coconutsandanahawleaves
5) OrderingthesaiddefendantsinCivilCaseNo.482tojointlyandseverally
reimburse the plaintiffs the sum of P202.00 as legal expenses in filing this
suit.

ThedefendantsappealedtotheRegionalTrialCourt[of]Ligao,Albay.
In its decision dated August 10, 1994, the Regional Trial Court [RTC]
dismissedtheaforesaidcasesonthegroundthattheclaimsfordamagesare
tenancyrelated problems which fall under the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board
(DARAB). On September 9, 1994, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review
withtheCourtofAppealsassailingthedecisionoftheRTC.However,inits
decision dated May 31, 1995, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower
courtsrulingthatthecasesfallwithintheoriginalandexclusivejurisdiction
of DARAB. Thereafter, the First Division of this Court, acting on the
petitionforreviewoncertiorarifiledbytheplaintiffs,rendereditsdecision
dated June 10, 1999 in G.R. No. 123417 affirming the decision of the
Municipal Trial Court, Guinobatan, Albay in Civil Case Nos. 481 and 482
andtherebysettingasidethedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAGRSP
No.35300 and that of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Cases Nos. 1751
and1752.
TheynowcomplainthatdespitethefactthatthedecisionoftheSupreme
Court in the aforesaid case had already become final and executory, the
respondentJudgestillrefusedtoissueawritofpossessionintheirfavor.

629

VOL.415,NOVEMBER12,2003 629
 Mortavs.Bagagan

ComplainantsfurtherallegethatonJune6,2000theyfiledamotiontocite
JaimeOccidentalforcontemptofcourt.Althoughmorethanone(1)yearhad
alreadyelapsedsincethemotionwasfiledintherespondentJudgessala,the
samehadremainedunresolveduptothefilingoftheinstantcomplaint.
As against the respondent Sheriff, the complainants aver[red] that
through his ignorance, negligence and connivance with the defendants, he
failedtoexecuteinfullthewritofexecutionthathadbeenpreviouslyissued
by the court in Civil Case Nos. 481 and 482. Moreover, it took respondent
Sheriff a long time before he finally
2
submitted his Sheriffs Return of
ServiceontheWritofExecution.
3
In his Answer/Comment dated April 2, 2002, respondent judge
explainedthathehaddeniedcomplainantsMotionfortheissuance
ofawritofpossessionbecause,bythetimeCivilCaseNos.481and
482werefinallydecidedbythisCourtonJune10,1999,theyhad
already been ousted from the lots in question pursuant to the
Decisions in DARAB Case No. 2413 and Civil Case No. 1920. In
Civil Case No. 1920, respondent judge ordered complainants to
vacate the disputed lots. A Writ of Execution/Demolition was
thereafter issued on January 29, 1998. On the other hand, the
DARAB Decision, which became final and executory on October
27, 1998, directed them to cease and desist from disturbing the
peacefulpossessionofthereinPetitionerJaimeOccidental.
Regarding the alleged delay in the resolution of the Motion for
Contemptfiledbycomplainants,respondentjudgecontendedthatan
ocularinspectionandahearinghadbeenconductedbyhiscourtas
earlyasJune16,2000,todetermineiftheirMotionhadanybasis.
With the consent of their counsel, the hearing had to be deferred,
however, pending receipt of the Sheriffs Report in Civil Case No.
1920.
For his
4
part, Respondent Sheriff Matias admitted in his
Comment dated April 18, 2002, that there was delay in the full
implementationoftheWritofExecutioninCivilCaseNos.481and
482. Explaining that the delay was due to his heavy workload and
thusunintentional,hebeggedforcompassionfromthisCourt.

_______________

2OCAReport,pp.12Rollo,pp.117118.

3Rollo,pp.3641.

4Id.,pp.9295.

630

630 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Mortavs.Bagagan
EvaluationandRecommendationoftheOCA

The OCA found that the explanation of respondent judge for not
granting the Motion for Execution, filed by complainants, was
sufficient.Accordingtothecourtadministrator,therecordsshowed
thattheyhadindeedbeenevictedfromthelotstheywereclaiming
when Civil Case Nos. 481 and5482 were finally decided by the
SupremeCourtonJune10,1999. Moreover,itemphasizedthatthis
CourthadmerelyaffirmedtheDecisionoftheMTCinsofarasthe
awardofdamageswasconcerned.
As to complainants Motion to cite Occidental in contempt, the
OCAheldthatthedelaywasdueprimarilytotheneedofthecourt
toclarifysomeimportantmatters,nottothenegligenceorpartiality
ofrespondent.Accordingly,itrecommendedthatthechargesagainst
himbedismissedforlackofmerit.
Ontheotherhand,theOCAfoundthatSheriffMatiashadfailed
to implement the Writ of Execution promptly and efficiently. It
recommended that he be ordered to pay a fine of P1,000, with a
warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act in the future
wouldbedealtwithmoreseverely.

TheCourtsRuling

We modify the OCAs findings and recommended penalties,

consistent with Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court and the
Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service.

AdministrativeLiability

WeagreewiththeOCAthatrespondentjudgeactedcorrectlyinnot
issuing a writ of execution/possession. His action was consistent
withtheDecisionofthisCourtinGRNo.123417affirmingthatof
the MTC as to damages. Besides, the latters Order directing
defendants not to molest complainants in their peaceful possession
wasrenderedmootwhentheywereoustedfromthedisputedlotsby
virtueofthefinalandexecutoryjudgmentsinCivilCaseNo.1920
and DARAB Case No. 2413. Indeed, the execution of a final
judgmentmayberefused,asinthiscase,whentherehas

_______________

5Morta,Sr.v.Occidental,G.R.No.123417,June10,1999,308SCRA167.

631
 VOL.415,NOVEMBER12,2003 631
Mortavs.Bagagan

been a change in the6 situation of the parties that would make its
executioninequitable.
ThedelayintheresolutionofcomplainantsMotion,however,is
analtogetherdifferentmatter.TheCodeofJudicialConductenjoins
trial court judges, as paragons of justice 7
in the first instance, to
dispose of the courts business promptly
8
and to decide cases and
motionswithintherequiredperiods. Section15(1)ofArticleVIIIof
the Constitution mandates them to do so within three months from
the date of submission for decision or9 final resolution. This Court,
throughAdministrativeCircularNo.1, alsospecificallyrequiresall
of them to act promptly on 10
all motions and interlocutory matters
pendingbeforetheircourts.
Hence,itiswellsettledthattheunexplainedfailureofjudgesto
decide cases and resolve motions and incidents within the
reglementaryperiod of 90 days, which is fixed by 11
the Constitution
andthelaw,rendersthemadministrativelyliable. Wehavestressed
oftenenoughthatdelayintheadministrationofjusticeundermines
the faith of the people in the judiciary, which is expected to hear
their supplications promptly. Delay reinforces in the mind of
litigants
12
the impression that the wheels of justice grind ever so
slowly. As the timehonored principle goes, justice delayed is
justicedenied.
Inthiscase,respondentjudgeneverresolvedtheMotion,filedon
June6,2000,tociteDefendantOccidentalforcontempt.Whileitis
truethattheformerimmediatelyconductedanocularinspectionof
the area to determine if the Motion had any basis, this act served
onlytomitigatehisinfraction,butnotabsolvehimfromit.

_______________

6PhilippineSinterCorporationv.CagayanElectricPowerandLightCo.,Inc.,381

SCRA582,April25,2002citingBachrachCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,357Phil.
483296SCRA487,September25,1998.
7Rule1.02ofCanon1oftheCodeofJudicialConduct.

8Rule3.05ofCanon3oftheCodeofJudicialConduct.SeealsoSyBangv.Judge

Mendez,350Phil.524287SCRA84,March6,1998.
9DatedJanuary28,1988.

10Paragraph6.1ofAdministrativeCircularNo.1.

11Lotinov.JudgeHernandez388Phil.646333SCRA1,June1,2000Re:Cases

LeftUndecidedbyJudgeBumanglag,Jr.,365Phil.492306SCRA50,April21,1999
Dysicov.JudgeDacumos,330Phil.834262SCRA275,September23,1996.
12SyBangv.JudgeMendez,supra.

632
632 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Mortavs.Bagagan

TheSheriffsReturnofServiceoftheWritofDemolitionissuedin
CivilCaseNo.1920wouldhaveclarifiedwhetherornotOccidental
hadalreadybeenfullyrestoredinpossession.Butwhileitsabsence
was a valid reason to defer action on the contempt Motion at the
outset,itwascertainlynotanexcusefortheprolongedinaction.
Hadrespondentjudgebeensominded,hewouldhaverequested
acopyoftheSheriffsReport,sothathecouldruleontheMotion
with dispatch. He has not satisfactorily explained his failure to do
so,consideringthattheWritofDemolitionissuedinCivilCaseNo.
1920hadbeenfullyexecutedasearlyasFebruary25,1998,andthe
13
returnthereonmadeonMarch17,1998.
Withrespecttothechargesagainstrespondentsheriff,weagree
withtheOCAthathewasremissinhisdutytoimplementtheWrit
fullyinCivilCaseNos.481and482.Timeandtimeagain,wehave
impressed upon those tasked to implement court orders and
processestoseetoitthatthefinalstageinthelitigationprocess
the execution of judgmentbe carried out promptly. They should
exerteveryeffortandindeedconsiderittheirboundendutytodoso, 14
inordertoensurethespeedyandefficientadministrationofjustice.
Adecisionthatisleftunexecutedordelayedindefinitelybecauseof
thesheriffsinefficiencyornegligenceremainsanemptyvictoryon
15
the part of the prevailing party. For this reason, any inordinate
delayintheexecutionofjudgmentistrulydeplorableandcannotbe
countenancedbytheCourt.
There is no mistaking the mandatory character of the period
prescribed under Section 14 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of
CourtontheReturnofaWritofExecution,whichreads:

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
satisfiedinpartorinfull.Ifthejudgmentcannotbesatisfiedinfullwithin
thirty(30)daysafterhisreceiptofthewrit,theofficershallreport

_______________

13 Return of Service of the Writ of Demolition in Civil Case No. 1920 dated March 17,

1998,filedbySheriffAngelC.Conejero,SheriffIVofLigao,AlbayRollo,p.84.
14SanJuan,Jr.v.Sangalang,351SCRA210,February6,2001Aquinov.Lavadia,417

Phil.770365SCRA441,September20,2001Mamanteov.Magumun,311SCRA259,July
28,1999.
15Visitacion,Jr.v.Ediza,414Phil.699362SCRA403,August9,2001citingJumiov.

EgayEviota,231SCRA551,March29,1994.

633
 VOL.415,NOVEMBER12,2003 633
Mortavs.Bagagan

to the court and state the reason therefor. 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
oftheproceedingstaken,andshallbefiledwiththecourtandcopiesthereof
promptlyfurnishedtheparties.

A similar rule is stated in Administrative Circular No. 12 dated

October
16
1, 1985, and incorporated in the Manual for Clerks of
Court. According to this Circular, all sheriffs and deputy sheriffs
shallsubmittothejudgeconcernedareportonactionstakenonall
writsandprocessesassignedtothemwithin10daysfromreceipt.
Per the records of this case, a Writ of Execution was
17
issued on
November 22, 1999 in Civil 18
Case Nos. 481 and 482. Respondent
SheriffsReturnofService ofthatWritwasfiledonlyonMay25,
2000, however, or six months thereafter. There is nothing in the
recordsshowingthat he submitted before then a periodic report on
theactionshehadtakenontheWritevery30daysfromthedateof
receipt as required. On the contrary, the Report indicates that the
WritwaspartiallyexecutedonDecember1528,1999andJanuary
11, 2000 and that the damages adjudged were partly paid in the
amountofP3,500plusoneunitofKaraokemachine.Butitwasonly
onMay25,2000,thatthismatterwasreportedtothetrialcourt.
The excuse proffered by respondent sheriffheavy 19
workload
cannotabsolvehimfromadministrativesanctions. Asanofficerof
the court, he should at all times show a20 high degree of
professionalism in the performance of his duties. Hehasfailedto
observe that degree of dedication required of him as a sheriff. The
chargeofconnivanceis,however,dismissedforlackofbasis.
Although the OCA recommended that Respondent Judge
Bagaganbeabsolvedofallcharges,wefindhimguiltyofundue

_______________

16E(4)ofChapterVIII,nowF(17.3)ofChapterVIofthe2002RevisedManual

forClerksofCourt.
17SeeOrderdatedNovember22,1999Rollo,p.18.

18AnnexCoftheComplaintRollo,p.19.

19Aquinov.Lavadia,supra.

20 Visitacion, Jr. v. Ediza, supra Dilan v. Dulfo, 364 Phil. 103 304 SCRA 460,

March11,1999Vda.deTisadov.Tablizo,324Phil.1253 SCRA 646, February 20,

1996.

634
634 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Mortavs.Bagagan
21
delay in resolving a pending motion,22 an infraction that also
constitutesaviolationofaCourtcircular. UnderSection11(B)of23
Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, this less serious charge
may be sanctioned by a fine of more than P10,000, but not
exceedingP20,000.
As
24
to Sheriff Matias, we find him guilty of simple neglect of
duty, a less grave offense under the Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. This infraction is
punishable
25
by a suspension of one month and one day to six
months. But under the circumstances, we find it inadvisable to
suspendrespondentsheriff,consideringthathisworkwouldbeleft
unattendedinhisabsence.Instead,weadoptourpreviousrulingin
26
Aquino v. Lavadia imposing a fine equivalent to his onemonth
salary,sothathecanfinallyimplementthesubjectWritandperform
hisotherduties.
WHEREFORE, Judge Antonio C. Bagagan of the Municipal
Trial Court of Guinobatan, Albay, is found guilty of unreasonable
delayandisFINEDP11,000withasternwarningthatarepetitionof
the same or a similar act in the future shall be dealt with more
severely. On the other hand, Sheriff Danilo O. Matias of the
RegionalTrialCourtofLigao,Albay(Branch14),isorderedtopay
afineequivalenttohisonemonthsalary,withasimilarwarningof
stiffersanctionsforthesameorasimilaract.
SOORDERED.

Puno(Chairman),SandovalGutierrez,CoronaandCarpio
Morales,JJ.,concur.

Respondent meted P11,000 fine for unreasonable delay, with

stern warning against repetition of similar act. Sheriff Danilo O.
Matiasorderedtopayafineequivalenttoone(1)monthsalary,with
asimilarwarningofstiffersanctionsforthesameonasimilaract.

_______________

219(1)ofRule140oftheRulesofCourt.

229(4)ofRule140oftheRulesofCourt.

23Ibid.

24Section52(B)(1)ofRuleIVoftheRevisedUniformRulesonAdministrative

Cases,CSCResolutionNo.991936.
25Ibid.

26Supra.

635
 VOL.415,NOVEMBER12,2003 635
FilipinasTextileMills,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals

Notes.A deputy sheriff is liable for gross inefficiency,

incompetence, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service if he withholds the due implementation of the writs of
execution on the mere pleas of the judgment creditors for time to
raise funds or to pay them on installments. (Zamora vs. Jumamoy,
238SCRA587[1994])
A sheriff s explanation that he was not able to implement the
writofdemolitionduetothreatstohislifeisunacceptableascould
havetakenappropriatestepsinrelationthereto.(Florendovs.Enrile,
239SCRA22[1994])

o0o

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.