The Supreme Court, addressing cases of graft and corruption in the lower echelon of the judicial bureaucracy, has dismissed a trial court sheriff for failing to enforce a writ and for grave miscounduct.
Ordered dismissed was George E. Gareza, sheriff III of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Victorias City, Negros Occidental (MTCC) for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and gross negligence for failing to satisfactorily enforce a writ in a small claims case.
“A sheriff is a front-line representative of the justice system in this country . . . [Sheriffs] are tasked with the primary duty to execute final judgments and orders of the courts. When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it becomes his ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to implement it in accordance with its mandate. It must be stressed that a judgment, if not executed, would be an empty victory on the part of the prevailing party,” the SC said, in a nine-page decision rendered on March 1, 2016.
The SC also forfeited Gareza’s all benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, and his perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or -controlled corporations.
The dismissal arose from the complaint of Aireen A. Mahusay, the authorized representative of Lopue’s Victorias Corporation, the plaintiff in a small claims case against one Joseph Andrei A. Garcia before the MTCC of Victorias City.
The MTCC rendered a decision based on a compromise agreement, where Garcia undertook to pay in installments P54,591.05 to Lopue’s. But Garcia reneged on his undertaking prompting Lopue’s to file a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, which respondent Gareza was tasked to implement.
The tribunal said it has been established, through substantial evidence, that respondent Gareza received the P10,000 from Garcia but failed to remit the same to the Branch Clerk of the MTCC of Victorias City. In fact, had it not been for several follow-ups from complainant and a reminder from the Branch Clerk requiring respondent to make a return of service on the writ of execution, the latter would not have remitted the money.
Even after having remitted the partial payment from Garcia, respondent still failed to enforce the writ and only made a return of service in July 2014 or after a period of almost three years after the issuance thereof.
In imposing the maximum penalty on Gareza, the high court ruled that dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal even on the first offense, as it also considered as aggravating circumstances the gross neglect of duty and simple neglect of duty.
The tribunal also reminded that sheriffs have the duty to perform faithfully and accurately what is incumbent upon them, and any method of execution falling short of the requirement of the law should not be countenanced.
The SC reiterated that the submission of the return and of periodic reports by the sheriff is a duty that cannot be taken lightly, saying it serves to update the court on the status of the execution and the reasons for the failure to satisfy its judgment.
The periodic reporting also provides the court insights on how efficient court processes are after a judgment’s promulgation. Its overall purpose is to ensure speedy execution of decisions, the tribunal stressed.