A.M. NO. P-05-1990 - BENJAMIN T. HOFER, COMPLAINANT, VS. TYRONE V. TAN, SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALAYBALAY CITY, BUKIDNON.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Executive RTC Judge Rolando S. Venadas, Sr[.] to compel respondent to do his duty and finish his job. [4] In his answer and comment [5] dated 24 August 2004 (answer), respondent alleged that he went to the spouses Pansacala's residence on 21 June 2004 to serve copies of the writ. There, he learned from the spouses Pansacala's daughter-in-law, Everly Pansacala (Everly), that the spouses Pansacala had already transferred their residence. He tendered a copy of the writ to Everly and advised her to give the same to the spouses Pansacala. On 22 July 2004, respondent returned to the property to serve the spouses Pansacala's privies copies of the writ. He found out that there were only three privies not eight as complainant reported occupying the property. He served the privies copies of the writ and informed them of the contents of the same in the Cebu-Visayan dialect. He also ordered them to vacate the property. However, because of the bad weather, the presence of small children, and the lack of a place to go, he allowed the privies three days within which to vacate the property. [6] Respondent alleged that he submitted a partial report dated 23 July 2004 to Paulito and the latter's counsel. On 24 July 2004, he returned to the subject property to verify whether the spouses Pansacala's privies had already vacated the same. He found out that they were still there. On the advice of one Atty. Nemesio G. Beltran, respondent submitted an amended partial report dated 3 August 2004 specifically stating the number of shanties to be demolished and the names of the spouses Pansacala's privies. He submitted copies of this report to the trial court's clerk of court, to Paulito, and to the latter's counsel. [7] In an Indorsement dated 31 August 2004, Judge Rolando S. Venadas, Sr., Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Malaybalay City, referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). In its Report [8] dated 28 February 2005, the OCA found that "[r]espondent erred when he personally received the amount of P15,000.00 from the complainant to implement the writ of execution." The OCA recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be held liable for misconduct and fined P20,000. In a Resolution dated 13 April 2005, the Court ordered the re-docketing of the case as a regular administrative matter. The Court issued a Resolution dated 14 June 2006 requiring the parties to manifest if they were willing to submit the case for decision based on the pleadings and records already filed and submitted. Complainant and respondent did not file any manifestation. The Court considers the parties to have waived their compliance with the Resolution dated 14 June 2006. On the charge of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, the Court finds respondent not liable. "In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the