The Sheriff’s Mandatory Duty: Prompt Execution of Court Orders

n

A.M. No. P-97-1235, January 30, 1997

nn

Imagine a scenario where a court decision is rendered in your favor, but the responsible officer delays its implementation. This delay renders the victory hollow and undermines the judicial process. The Supreme Court case of Portes v. Tepace underscores the critical role of sheriffs in the timely execution of court orders. The case clarifies that sheriffs have a ministerial duty to enforce writs of execution promptly and efficiently, absent a restraining order, and failure to do so constitutes dereliction of duty.

nn

Understanding the Sheriff’s Role and Responsibilities

nn

The sheriff is a vital cog in the machinery of justice. They are primarily responsible for serving court processes and writs. This responsibility is not discretionary; it is a ministerial duty. A ‘ministerial duty’ is one in which an officer performs a prescribed task in a specific manner, as mandated by legal authority, without exercising personal judgment on its propriety. In essence, a sheriff must execute a writ as instructed, unless legally prevented from doing so.

nn

The Revised Rules of Court, particularly Rule 39 on Execution, outlines the procedures for enforcing judgments. Section 14 of Rule 39 states the sheriff’s duty: “The officer must enforce the writ as early as possible and in accordance with the provisions thereof.” This highlights the urgency and importance of the sheriff’s role.

nn

For example, if a court orders the eviction of illegal settlers from a property, the sheriff must execute this order promptly. They cannot delay the eviction because of personal opinions or perceived difficulties unless a court order directs them to halt the process. Delaying or refusing to carry out a lawful order undermines the authority of the court and the rights of the winning party.

nn

The Case of Portes v. Tepace: A Sheriff’s Delay

nn

The case revolved around an election protest for the position of Punong Barangay (village chief) in Cabacungan, Allen, Northern Samar. Ernio Portes filed an election protest against Jeremias Lesiguez, who was initially proclaimed the winner. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of Portes, declaring him the duly elected Punong Barangay. Portes then sought a writ of execution pending appeal, which the MTC granted.

nn

Deputy Provincial Sheriff Cesario G. Tepace was tasked with serving the writ of execution. However, Portes alleged that Tepace unjustifiably delayed the service of the writ, citing various reasons, including a supposed trip to Manila and later, the filing of a petition for certiorari by Lesiguez. Portes further alleged that Tepace was biased towards Lesiguez because Tepace’s wife was the sister of the local mayor, a supporter of Lesiguez.

nn

The key events unfolded as follows:

n

n
• January 3, 1995: MTC grants Portes’ motion for execution pending appeal.

n

• January 6, 1995: MTC Clerk of Court requests Tepace to serve the writ immediately. Tepace allegedly refuses, citing a planned trip to Manila.

n

• January 9, 1995: Tepace requests and receives a copy of the writ.

n

• January 16, 1995: Tepace fails to serve the writ, citing sick leave.

n

• April 24, 1995: Lesiguez’ petition for certiorari is dismissed, yet Tepace continues to delay service.

n

nn

The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasized the sheriff’s duty to act promptly. The Court cited the Office of the Court Administrator’s findings, stating that Tepace