FAJARDO V. QUITALIG (REMEDIAL)

As frontline officials of the justice system, sheriffs must always strive to maintain public trust in the performance of their duties. Hence, they must see to it that the final stage in the litigation process is completed without unnecessary delay.

A review of the record of this case revels that respondent enforced the writ of execution dated 7 March 2000 only on 24 August 2000 as shown by his 25 August 2000 Report of Service.

SECTION 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 30 days after receipt of writ, the officer shall report 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 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 hereof 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.

We find respondent's 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 or service within 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.

Clearly, the actuations of respondent constitute disrespect, if not outright defiance of the MTCC's 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.