8/16/2019 De Guzman vs. Mendoza

1/2

DE GUZMAN vs. MENDOZA

A.M. No. P-03-1693

March 17, 2005

On 02 May 1988, Makati RTC rendered decision in favor of the defendant in a civil case, wherein complainant

alvador !e "#$man acted as co#nsel for the plaintiffs% On 1& Octo'er 2000, (#d)e Cr#$ iss#ed a Wri o! E"#c$io%

which ordered Respondent heriff Mendo$a to ca#se the satisfaction of the said decision% Then, on 0* +pril 2001, an

A&ias Wri o! E"#c$io%'Poss#ssio%'E(#c)#%'D#)o&iio% was iss#ed, which, #nlike the earlier writ of eec#tionwhich only ordered the cancellation of lis pendens and payment of attorney-s fees, the latter writ of eec#tion directed

the transfer of possession, e.ectment, payment of monthly rentals, and demolition / which were not covered 'y theco#rt decision%

n o'edience to said writ, Respondent heriff Mendo$a and +tty% Melotindos co#nsel for the defendant went to the

s#'.ect property to serve the 3otice to Comply #pon the five tenants% Respondent heriff alle)edly intimidated thetenants to vacate the premises, pay monthly rentals, and demolish the str#ct#res therein%

Complainant alle)ed that the Respondent heriff intentionally failed to attach 4a)e & of the alias writ of eec#tion to

the 3otice to Comply, which he insisted was important 'eca#se it contained the si)natory of the writ, the date it was

si)ned and the dispositive portion of the co#rt decision which did not mention e.ectment, monthly rentals, demolition

or possession% Moreover, complainant also alle)ed that from May 2001 to March 2002, Respondent heriff )atheredthe plaintiffs tenants at Noytsis Panciteria in Makati City, where +tty% Melotindos wo#ld collect the rental and iss#e a

receipt% Thereafter, +tty% Melotindos wo#ld hand over to respondent sheriff his share in the collection%

n his Comment, Respondent heriff Mendo$a characteri$ed as prepostero#s, ridic#lo#s and non5sensical, and sho#ld

not 'e attended to or entertained the char)e that he connived in the iss#ance of the void writ of eec#tion 'eca#se as a

 'ranch sheriff, he lacks the a#thority to iss#e writs or any co#rt order% 6e also la'eled as cheap, #nkind and p#re

harassment the alle)ation the he personally )athered the plaintiff5tenants to collect rentals from them%

ss#e7

hether or not Respondent heriff Mendo$a is )#ilty of miscond#ct%

6eld7es%

There is no proof that respondent sheriff participated in the iss#ance of the void alias writ of eec#tion nor did he

commit any infraction in the enforcement of the same%

The d#ty of a sheriff to eec#te a valid writ is ministerial and not discretionary% 1 + sheriff is the proper officer to

eec#te all writs ret#rna'le to the co#rt, #nless another is appointed 'y special order for the p#rpose% hen a writ is

 placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his d#ty, in the a'sence of any instr#ctions to the contrary, to proceed with

reasona'le celerity and promptness to eec#te it accordin) to its mandate% 6e is s#pposed to eec#te the order of the

co#rt strictly to the letter%

6owever, the co#rt finds s#fficient proof that Respondent heriff )athered the plaintiffs tenants at the  Noytsis Panciteria and received 4:00%00 from +tty% Melotindos%

;nder ection 9, R#le 1*1 of the R#les of Co#rt, the proced#re for the

1 + p#rely ministerial act or d#ty is one which an officer or tri'#nal performs in the contet of a )iven set of facts, in a prescri'ed manner and

witho#t re)ard to the eercise of his own .#d)ment #pon the propriety or impropriety of the act done% + discretionary act, on the other hand, is a

fac#lty conferred #pon a co#rt or official 'y which he may decide the ?#estion either way and still 'e ri)ht%

8/16/2019 De Guzman vs. Mendoza

2/2

• econd, he m#st o'tain co#rt approval for s#ch estimated epenses>

• Third, the approved estimated epenses shall 'e deposited 'y the interested party with the Clerk of Co#rt and

e5oficio sheriff>

• =o#rth, the Clerk of Co#rt shall dis'#rse the amo#nt to the eec#tin) sheriff> and

• =ifth, the eec#tin) sheriff shall li?#idate his epenses within the same period for renderin) a ret#rn on the

writ%

@ +ny amo#nt received 'y the sheriff in excess of the lawful fees allowed 'y the R#les of Co#rt is an $%&a*!$&

#"acio% *hich r#%+#rs hi) &ia !or rav# )isco%+$c a%+ ross +isho%#s%

n the instant case, there is no disp#te that +tty% Melotindos acknowled)ed receipt of all the rentals collected 'y

Respondent heriff% Re)ardin) the 4:00%00, s#ch amo#nt eceeded the lawf#l fees allowed 'y the R#les of Co#rt, th#s

it constit#tes #na#thori$ed fees and #nlawf#l eaction which renders respondent sheriff )#ilty of dishonesty, )rave

miscond#ct, and cond#ct pre.#dicial to the 'est interest of the service%

Th#s, Respondent heriff Mendo$a is fo#nd )#ilty of "rave Miscond#ct, !ishonesty and Cond#ct 4re.#dicial to the

Aest nterest of the ervice, and is ;4