A.M. No. P-07-2388 (Formerly OCA-IPI No. 07-2558-P) - SANNIE V. JUARIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. NORBERTO LABIS, SHERIFF IV, RTC, BRANCH 44, INITAO, MISAMIS ORIENTAL. R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the OCA recommended that respondent be fined in the amount of P5,000.00. In a Resolution [11] dated 10 October 2007, the Court noted the report of the OCA and directed the parties to manifest whether they are willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed. In an undated letter, complainant manifested his willingness to submit the case to the Court for disposition. [12] Respondent expressed the same willingness in his Manifestation dated 26 November 2007. [13] The Court finds the OCA's recommendations in order. A sheriff's duty in the execution of the writ issued by a court is purely ministerial. When a writ is placed in his hands, it is his duty, in the absence of instructions, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate. He has no discretion whether to execute it or not. Good faith on his part, or lack of it, in proceeding to properly execute his mandate would be of no moment, for he is chargeable with the knowledge that being an officer of the court tasked therefor, it behooves him to make due compliance. [14] In the case at bar, the Court finds that respondent sheriff was lackadaisical in the enforcement of the writ of execution in Criminal Case No. 2522. While he did serve the writ on Laura, it appears that he failed to exercise due diligence in determining whether Laura had any other property out of which the decreed obligation could be satisfied. It must be stressed that a judgment, if not executed, would be an empty victory on the part of the prevailing party. [15] Clearly, by his actuations, respondent displayed a conduct falling short of the stringent standards required of court employees. He is guilty of simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. [16] Under the civil service rules and regulations, simple neglect of duty is punishable with suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day for the first offense. However, to prevent any undue adverse effect on public service which would ensue if work was otherwise left unattended by reason of respondent's suspension, the Court deems it wise to impose the penalty of fine instead. Thus, in line with jurisprudence, the Court imposes a fine instead of suspension from service so that respondent can continue to discharge his assigned tasks. [17] Concerning the charge of grave misconduct, the Court likewise finds the same to be unsubstantiated. Respondent reasonably explained why he had asked an amount from complainant and was able to satisfactorily prove that the money had been properly accounted for. WHEREFORE, for simple neglect of duty, respondent Norberto Labis, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of Initao, Misamis Oriental, Branch 44, is FINED in the sum of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). For lack of factual and legal bases, the charge of grave misconduct ag