A.M. No. R-394-P. January 30, 1986.
Teofilo Fineza and Valentina Fineza, complainants, vs. Elias Anacleto, Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Iligan City, respondent.

FACTS

The complainants, spouses Teofilo and Valentina Fineza, filed an administrative case against Deputy Sheriff Elias Anacleto for alleged harassment and dereliction of duty. The Finezas had lost an appealed civil case and were ordered to pay attorney’s fees. Upon remand for execution, the respondent sheriff sent them a letter demanding payment by April 15, 1985, or their residential lot would be sold at auction on May 21, 1985. On April 12, 1985, the Finezas deposited the full judgment amount of P3,015.00 with the Regional Trial Court cashier.
Despite this payment, the sheriff proceeded to publish a notice of the auction sale in the Lanao Mail newspaper on April 22, April 29, and May 6, 1985. The complainants alleged that this publication after full payment constituted harassment, causing them embarrassment and humiliation. The respondent sheriff defended himself by stating he only learned of the payment on April 24, 1985, when an angry Mrs. Fineza confronted him. He claimed he immediately wrote a letter to the newspaper publisher that day, requesting a stop to the publication, and handed it to Mrs. Fineza for delivery.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent sheriff is administratively liable for harassment and dereliction of duty for publishing the notice of auction sale after the judgment debt had been fully paid.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for utter lack of merit. The legal logic centers on the complainants’ failure to fulfill their basic duty of properly notifying the executing sheriff of the payment, which is crucial to halting the execution process. The Court found that the complainants did not inform the sheriff directly about the deposit made on April 12. Mr. Fineza, a government auditor whose office was very near the Clerk of Court, could have easily done so but did not. Consequently, the sheriff, lacking official knowledge of the payment, was proceeding correctly with his ministerial duty to execute the judgment when he caused the publication.
Furthermore, the Court did not find bad faith or harassment in the sheriff’s actions. Upon being informed of the payment on April 24, he acted promptly by drafting a letter to the publisher to stop the publication. The failure to actually stop the publication was attributed to Mrs. Fineza’s refusal to deliver the letter, based on her stated belief that she should not be responsible for stopping or paying for a publication she did not initiate. The sheriff’s actions, therefore, were not unreasonable or malicious under the circumstances. The Court concluded that the sheriff cannot be held administratively liable for performing his duty in the absence of timely and direct notification from the judgment obligors that the debt had been satisfied.