THE Supreme Court has dismissed a court sheriff in Pampanga for neglect of duty.
In a decision promulgated on July 30, 2024 but only made public yesterday, the Court en banc, through Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, dismissed Vicente S. Sicat Jr. for repeatedly failing to properly perform his duties as a sheriff in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Angeles City Regional Trial Court in Pampanga.
Sicat’s dismissal stemmed from his handling of a writ of execution in a case involving the Anti-Bouncing Check Law.
The Municipal Circuit Trial Court had ordered him to seize and sell the properties of Bernadette Mullet Potts to satisfy a judgment in a case.
However, complainant Ricky Hao Monion alleged that Sicat improperly submitted a Notice to Lift the Levy on Potts’ real properties to the Register of Deeds without a court order, leading to the cancellation of the levy and allowing Potts to transfer the property to another person.
Monion then filed a case and the Office of the Court Administrator found Sicat negligent and recommended his dismissal from the service, noting that he had already been found liable in six prior administrative cases.
The High Court agreed, stressing that sheriffs must strictly adhere to procedural rules to ensure the proper enforcement of court orders. It added that any deviation from these procedures can undermine the administration of justice and warrants disciplinary action.
The en banc stressed that under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a levy on a property can only be lifted through proper court proceedings, adding that Sicat violated this rule when he issued the notice to lift and discharge the levy without the proper court order.
“Sheriffs have no discretion on the manner of implementing a writ of execution and they must strictly abide by the prescribed procedure to avoid liability. Nowhere in the rules does it allow a sheriff to issue a notice to lift a property already levied for execution without the necessary court intervention,” part of the SC’s 12-page ruling said.
“In the present case, respondent Sicat clearly veered away from his duties when he failed to personally verify the properties of Potts before levying her properties and sent the Notice to the Registry of Deeds without passing through the proper court proceedings,” it added.
The SC said that after Sicat’s first administrative case in 1998, the five that followed contained similar warnings in order for him to be wary of his ensuing functions as court sheriff, however, the warnings fell on deaf ears.
“Upon careful consideration of the attendant facts and the gravity of respondent’s deliberate refusal to faithfully perform his duties over the course of his 40-year service as a court employee, the Court finds it apt to impose the penalty of dismissal from the service,” the SC said.
