G.R. No. P-07-2383; December 15, 2010
Crispin Sarmiento, Complainant, vs. Luisito P. Mendiola, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 20, Manila, Respondent.

FACTS

Crispin Sarmiento was acquitted in a criminal case but was ordered to pay civil liability. After the decision became final, a writ of execution was issued. Respondent Sheriff Luisito P. Mendiola, implementing the writ, levied upon a Mercedes Benz on February 12, 2007. Complainant Crispin Sarmiento alleged the levy was illegal, asserting he was merely the caretaker and that the vehicle belonged to his brother, Tirso Sarmiento, as evidenced by a Deed of Sale dated January 24, 2007. He claimed the sheriff acted without proper authority and without initially presenting the writ.
In his defense, respondent sheriff denied the charges, claiming he showed the relevant court orders and a Notice of Levy. He averred he acted in good faith based on prior information from the son of the registered owner that the car had been sold to Crispin years earlier. He argued that if Tirso was the true owner, Tirso should have been the complainant.

ISSUE

Whether respondent sheriff is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of Simple Misconduct. The Court emphasized that a sheriff performs a sensitive role and must be vigilant and knowledgeable in implementing writs. The core legal principle is that a money judgment is enforceable only against the property of the judgment debtor. Property belonging to third persons cannot be levied upon.
The Court found respondent’s actions unjustified. Records showed a prior sheriff’s return, which respondent failed to thoroughly review, indicating that the same vehicle was registered under a third person (Efren Panganiban) and not the judgment debtor, prompting a prior suspension of levy. Respondent levied on the same vehicle despite this knowledge. Furthermore, the Deed of Sale presented by complainant showed the vehicle was sold to Tirso, not to the judgment debtor Crispin. Respondent’s claim of relying on verbal assurance was insufficient; he failed to exercise due diligence in verifying ownership before levying. His act of levying property not belonging to the judgment debtor was a transgression of his authority.
Misconduct is defined as unlawful conduct prejudicial to the rights of parties. Respondent’s actions, while not proven to be corrupt, constituted simple misconduct—a less grave offense. Considering it was his first offense and in line with OCA recommendations, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) with a stern warning.