Court sheriff dismissed for neglect

THE Supreme Court said sheriffs are crucial in ensuring the proper execution of court orders, emphasizing any misstep in their duties would affect the administration of justice.

In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Supreme Court en banc dismissed Vicente Sicat Jr., a sheriff in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court in Angeles City, Pampanga, for repeatedly failing to perform his duties correctly.

The case against Sicat arose from his improper handling of a writ of execution in a case involving the Anti-Bouncing Check Law.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court had directed Sicat to seize and sell the properties of Bernadette Mullet Potts to satisfy a judgment. However, complainant Ricky Hao Monion accused Sicat of improperly submitting a notice to lift the levy on Potts' real properties to the Register of Deeds without a court order.

The action led to the cancellation of the levy, allowing Potts to transfer the property to another individual.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Sicat negligent and recommended his dismissal, citing his history of administrative infractions.

Sicat had previously been held liable in six administrative cases.

Agreeing with the OCA's findings, the high court ruled that sheriffs must strictly adhere to procedural rules to ensure proper enforcement of court orders.

It added that any deviation from rules could undermine the justice system and warrant disciplinary action.

Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a levy on a property can only be lifted through proper court proceedings.

Sicat's issuance of a notice to lift the levy without a court order was deemed a violation of the said rule.

While his actions typically constituted simple neglect of duty — a less serious offense punishable by suspension — the Supreme Court determined that his repeated violations over his 40-year career warranted dismissal.

"The Court will not shy from ridding its ranks of court employees 'who undermine its efforts toward an effective and efficient administration of justice.' In this case, [Sicat]'s deplorable track record in the Judiciary reveals a pattern of unwillingness to reform, deeming it worthy of the gravest penalty," the decision read.

In a separate concurring opinion, Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr. agreed with the dismissal but contended that Sicat should have been held liable for gross neglect of duty rather than simple neglect, given the severity of his actions.