Case Digest: ONG v. PASCASIO

WILSON C. ONG v. ARIEL R. PASCASIO

586 SCRA 364 (2009)

The Sheriff’s failure to implement the writ of possession is inexcusable and constitute dereliction of duty.

Respondent Ariel R. Pascasio is the sheriff of the Municipal Trial Cort in Cities of Olongapo City while complainant Wilson C. Ong is the plaintiff in a civil case filed in the said court. A judgment was issued in favor of Ong. When the Decision became final and executory, a Writ of Execution was issued. Pascasio then sent the judgment-debtors, Spouses Cabreros a Notice to Vacate. Pascasio received from Ong the initial amount of P1,500 and P6,000 as ―partial deposit‖ in the implementation of the writ with the assurance that he would deliver the Certificate of Possession which he failed to do so.

Ong claims that Pascasio had earlier assured him that Spouses Cabreros would voluntarily vacate the premises and that they needed only two weeks to move. After the lapse of two weeks, Pascasio told him that Spouses Cabreros were still residing in the premises. Pascasio however alleges that the decision of the trial court had been implemented except for the enforcement of the Notice to Vacate He admitted having received P210, 000 deposit from Spouses Cabreros but argues that Ong refused to receive the same fearing that he would not be able to recover the remaining balance of the judgment debt and that when he attempted to return the money to the Cabreros, they refused to accept it.

By memorandum, the OCA found Pascasio to have violated Section 9, Rule 141 and Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Pascasio committed Grave Abuse of Authority, Dishonesty, and Malfeasance in the performance of public functions as branch sheriff

HELD:

Pascasio’s failure to fully implement the writ of possession is inexcusable and constitutes dereliction of duty. His claim that he was prevented from fully implementing the writ due to lack of manpower resources is untenable. He is guilty of dereliction of duty as a sheriff for failing to execute the writ within 30 days from receipt thereof.

Pursuant to Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Pacasio is required to make a return and submit it to the court immediately upon satisfaction in part or in full of the judgment; and if the judgment could not be satisfied in full, to make a report to the court within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ and to state why full satisfaction could not be made. The sheriff shall continue to make a report every thirty (30) days on the proceedings being taken thereon until the judgment is fully satisfied. The requirement aims to update the court as to the status of the execution and to give it an idea as to why the judgment was not satisfied. It also provides the court with insights as to how efficient court processes are after judgment has been promulgated. The over-all purpose of the requirement is to ensure the speedy execution of decisions.