G.R. No. P-97-1249 July 11, 1997
PACITA SY TORRES, complainant, vs. FROILAN S. CABLING, Deputy Sheriff, RTC, Malabon, Metro Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Pacita Sy Torres, the defendant in Civil Case No. 1769-MN, charged respondent Deputy Sheriff Froilan S. Cabling with abuse of authority and grave abuse of discretion in implementing a writ of execution for a judgment debt of P6,000. The complainant alleged that over her protest and cash payment offer, the respondent levied and carted away a sala set, a karaoke, a refrigerator, and a television with an aggregate claimed value of P19,000. She asserted these properties belonged to third parties (her son and sisters) and were merely kept in her house. Despite third-party claims, the respondent sold all properties at public auction for only P5,750 without providing her a copy of the plaintiff’s indemnity bond as required. In his comment, the respondent admitted levying the properties pursuant to a writ but denied the complainant objected or offered cash payment. He stated he sent a notice of third-party claim to the plaintiff, who filed an indemnity bond, after which he proceeded with the sheriff’s sale. The case was investigated by Vice-Executive Judge Amanda Valera-Cabigao, who found the respondent guilty of misconduct for acting with undue haste and recommended a one-month-and-one-day suspension. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the respondent failed to comply with notice requirements for the sale and violated rules on payment by the judgment creditor-purchaser, recommending a one-month suspension without pay.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Froilan S. Cabling is administratively liable for abuse of authority in the implementation of the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable for abuse of authority. The Supreme Court found the respondent liable not for the immediate levy or for not accepting a cash payment, as sheriffs are allowed immediate levy under Section 15, Rule 39 to prevent loss of property. However, the Court agreed with the OCA that the respondent failed to comply with paragraphs (b) and (d) of Section 18, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which require posting notice of sale in three public places for a specified period and giving written notice to the judgment debtor. This non-compliance could have contributed to the sale of properties valued at P19,000 for only P5,750. Furthermore, the respondent violated Section 23, Rule 39 by not requiring the judgment creditor, who was the highest bidder and against whom a third-party claim was filed, to pay the bid amount in cash, instead merely crediting it to the judgment debt. These violations amounted to abuse of authority. The Court did not rule on irregularities concerning the third-party claim as the claimants filed a separate civil action for damages. The penalty of suspension from office without pay for one month, as recommended by the OCA, was deemed appropriate. The respondent was suspended for one month without pay and warned that future similar acts would be dealt with more severely.