In Nenita Q. Sulapas v. Samuel G. Basco, the Supreme Court addressed the administrative liability of a sheriff for failing to diligently execute a court order. The Court ruled that a sheriff’s failure to promptly estimate and facilitate the collection of legal fees necessary for the execution of a judgment constitutes simple neglect of duty, warranting disciplinary action. This decision underscores the critical role of sheriffs in ensuring the efficient administration of justice and the timely enforcement of court decisions, impacting the rights and remedies available to litigants.

Sheriff’s Inaction: When Delay Undermines Justice

This case arose from an administrative complaint filed by Nenita Q. Sulapas against Samuel G. Basco, a sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Surigao City. Sulapas alleged that Basco failed to implement a court order directing the continuation of a public sale of levied properties, thereby preventing her from reaping the benefits of a favorable judgment in a replevin suit. The central issue was whether Basco’s inaction constituted grave misconduct or simple neglect of duty. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the facts and circumstances, found Basco guilty of simple neglect of duty.

The factual backdrop of the case involves a replevin suit filed by Sulapas against several individuals who refused to return two motor boats she claimed ownership of. The RTC ruled in favor of Sulapas, ordering the defendants to deliver the motor boats or pay their value, along with damages and attorney’s fees. After the decision became final, a writ of execution was issued, and the defendants’ properties were levied upon for public auction. However, the public auction was not completed. Sulapas’ counsel requested the court to continue the sale of the levied properties.

The RTC granted the motion and directed Sheriff Basco to post a new notice of sale. Despite repeated requests from Sulapas and her lawyer, Basco failed to do so, leading to the administrative complaint. Sulapas argued that Basco’s inaction was without justifiable cause and prevented her from benefiting from the RTC judgment. In his defense, Basco claimed that the delay was due to Sulapas’ refusal to pay the required legal fees. He asserted that he had advised her to pay the fees to the clerk of court once the estimate of expenses was ready and after securing the court’s approval for posting a new notice.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the complaint and Basco’s comment, recommending that Basco’s failure constituted simple neglect of duty rather than grave misconduct. The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA’s assessment. The Court emphasized that grave misconduct requires a clear intent to violate the law or a flagrant disregard of established rules. While Sulapas failed to substantiate her allegation of bad faith or improper motive on Basco’s part, the Court found him accountable for neglecting his duty under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.

Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court outlines the legal fees that sheriffs may collect. It also states:

SEC. 9. Sheriff and other persons serving processes. —

xxx xxx xxx

In addition to the fees hereinabove fixed, the party requesting the process of any court, preliminary, incidental, or final, shall pay the sheriff’s expenses serving or executing the process, or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized…in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerk of court… (emphasis supplied)

Building on this, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that under this provision, Basco should have promptly estimated the legal fees Sulapas needed to pay before a new notice of sale could be posted. The Court emphasized that Basco himself acknowledged this requirement in his comment. By failing to estimate the expenses and fees, submit them to the RTC for approval, and advise Sulapas to deposit the amount with the clerk of court, Basco neglected his duties.

The Court further criticized Basco’s unprofessional conduct, stating:

Furthermore, respondent’s admission that he even dared the complainant to accompany him in serving the writ and pay for his meals and transportation expenses degraded the dignity of his office and the courts. His behavior was clearly unwarranted and highly unethical.

The Supreme Court highlighted the vital role sheriffs play in the administration of justice, emphasizing their responsibility for the speedy and efficient service of court processes and writs. Unexecuted or indefinitely delayed decisions, resulting from inefficiency or negligence, render victories hollow for winning litigants. Sheriffs must consistently demonstrate professionalism and competence in performing their duties. Considering Basco’s failure to fulfill his obligations, the Court found him guilty of simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure to give attention to a task, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.

The Court then stated:

Respondent cannot attribute the delay in the execution of the July 13, 2001 RTC order solely to the complainant’s failure to pay the legal fees, considering that he himself failed to do his duty of submitting an estimate of the expenses to the court for approval. His ineptitude displayed a conduct short of the stringent standards required of all court employees.

Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense, punishable by suspension without pay for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. Given the prolonged neglect that delayed the full implementation of a court order, the imposition of the maximum penalty was warranted. Consequently, the Supreme Court suspended Basco for six months without pay, issuing a stern warning against any future repetition of similar acts.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Sheriff Basco’s failure to implement a court order directing the continuation of a public sale constituted grave misconduct or simple neglect of duty. The Supreme Court found him guilty of simple neglect of duty.
What is the responsibility of a sheriff regarding legal fees?	A sheriff is responsible for estimating the legal fees required for the execution of court processes, submitting the estimate to the court for approval, and advising the interested party to deposit the amount with the clerk of court. This is as stated in Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
What constitutes simple neglect of duty?	Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of them, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. It is considered a less grave offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
What was the penalty imposed on Sheriff Basco?	Sheriff Basco was suspended for six months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future would be dealt with more severely. This penalty was imposed due to his prolonged neglect in implementing a court order.
What is the significance of the sheriff’s role in the administration of justice?	Sheriffs play a vital role in the administration of justice by ensuring the speedy and efficient service of court processes and writs. Their actions directly impact the enforcement of court orders and judgments, affecting the rights and remedies of litigants.
What should a sheriff do if a party fails to pay the legal fees?	Before attributing the delay solely to the party’s failure to pay, the sheriff must first fulfill their duty of submitting an estimate of the expenses to the court for approval. Only after fulfilling this obligation can the sheriff claim failure to pay the legal fees as the reason for the delay.
Can a sheriff demand personal payment for transportation and meals from a party?	No, a sheriff should not demand personal payment for transportation and meals from a party. Such behavior degrades the dignity of the office and the courts and is considered unwarranted and highly unethical.
How does the Supreme Court define grave misconduct?	Grave misconduct manifests a clear intent to violate the law or a flagrant disregard of established rules. Unlike simple neglect, it requires evidence of bad faith or improper motive.

The Sulapas v. Basco case serves as a reminder of the importance of diligence and professionalism among court personnel, particularly sheriffs, in upholding the integrity of the judicial system. Their prompt and efficient execution of court orders is essential for ensuring that justice is not delayed and that litigants can effectively enforce their rights. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the need for sheriffs to adhere to the prescribed procedures and to avoid any conduct that may compromise the impartiality and dignity of their office.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: NENITA Q. SULAPAS, VS. SAMUEL G. BASCO, A.M. NO. P-07-2310, April 19, 2007