CASE No. 4 Florendo vs.

Enrile, December 7, 1994

TOPIC:

Ministerial and Discretionary Duty

Doctrine: duty imposed to execute the writ is ministerial, not directory. A purely ministerial act or duty is
one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience
to the mandate of the legal authority, without regard to the exercise of his own judgment upon the
propriety or impropriety of the act done.

FACTS:

CYNTHIA A. FLORENDO originally filed an ejectment case which she won and the MTCC ordered the
defendants to vacate the premises and to surrender possession to the complainant. The order was
appealed and sustained by the RTC in toto, and so the MTCC issued a writ of execution.

Now, FLORENDO as complainant charged the respondent sheriff EXEQUIEL ENRILE with failure to
implement a writ of demolition which was assigned to Enrile for execution after payment of P5,200.00
which he did not issue a receipt. He merely acknowledged P2,700 by an indication on the stationary of
the lawyer of the complainant and P500 as handwritten on the stationary of the Office of the City Legal
Officer who is also the same lawyer. The remaining P2,000 amount was through a check drawn by the
lawyer.

The lawyer of the complainant wrote Enrile to implement the writ or return the amount, Enrile doing
neither the complainant filed the suit for his dismissal from service. The respondent claimed that he
went to the defendants multiple times to implement the writ but he was unsuccessful and was even
threatened “magkamatayan muna” for which he filed return of service which he filed 10 months and 9
months late, he claims that the court noted that the danger was "real, and it will be very risky for him to
implement" that the writ was then assigned to another sheriff.

Enrile was found by the trial court to be stubborn in not engaging the services of counsel to facilitate the
early termination of the investigation resulting to at least 15 hearings were cancelled or postponed so
he was recommended for 6 months suspension and guilty of neglect of duty resulting in violation of the
right to speedy administration of justice to complainant, the court administrator fined him the amount
equivalent to 1 month salary and return of the P5,200.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the sheriff is guilty of the charges.

RULING:

Yes, the sheriff is guilty of grave misconduct, gross dishonesty, serious dereliction or neglect of duty,
gross incompetence or inefficiency, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for his
nonfeasance and misfeasance.

The respondent's explanation that he was not able to implement the writ of demolition because he was
threatened with death by the defendants is unacceptable. If that were true, he should have either
reported it to the MTCC and requested the assistance of other sheriffs or law enforcement authorities,
or filed the appropriate criminal complaint against the defendants who had threatened him. Instead of
doing so, he filed his returns only after several months had lapsed.He even did not issue a proper receipt
or reported the sheriff payments made to him.

The duty imposed upon the sheriff to execute the writ is ministerial, not directory. A purely ministerial
act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner,
in obedience to the mandate of the legal authority, without regard to the exercise of his own judgment
upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done.