A.M. No. P-167. July 17, 1975. ALFONSO GUEVARRA, ET AL., complainants, vs. EULALIO JUANSON, respondent.
FACTS:

Respondent Deputy Sheriff Eulalio C. Juanson levied upon chattels from the residence of judgment-debtor Eugenio Guevarra pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the City Court of Manila, Branch VIII. He scheduled a public auction for May 31, 1972. Prior to the sale, complainants (the spouses Alfonso Guevarra and Clarissa Victoriano, and the spouses Ambrosio Trias and Eloisa Pinzon) filed a replevin suit in the City Court of Cavite (Civil Case No. 1514) on May 26, 1972, claiming ownership of the levied properties. Consequently, Juanson reset the auction for July 3, 1972. The Cavite court dismissed the replevin suit on June 22, 1972. Complainants filed a motion for reconsideration on June 29, notifying the defendants’ counsel that it would be submitted for the court’s resolution on July 11, 1972. Separately, they filed a motion to suspend the auction sale with the office of the Provincial Sheriff at Makati, Rizal, not with a court, requesting suspension until the Cavite court resolved their motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether respondent sheriff committed grave abuse of authority and negligence by proceeding with the auction sale on July 3, 1972, despite the pendency of complainants’ motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of their replevin suit.

RULING

The Supreme Court exonerated respondent sheriff and dismissed the administrative complaint. The legal logic is clear: at the time of the auction sale on July 3, 1972, there was no valid legal impediment or court order restraining the execution. The complainants’ motion for reconsideration in the Cavite court did not automatically suspend the execution proceedings from the Manila court. A mere motion for reconsideration, without a corresponding writ of preliminary injunction or a restraining order issued by a competent court, does not legally halt a sheriff from implementing a valid writ of execution. The respondent was duty-bound to enforce the Manila court’s writ unless formally enjoined. The Court noted that complainants filed their motion to suspend the sale only with the sheriff’s office, not with the Manila court that issued the writ, which was procedurally insufficient to create a legal bar. Furthermore, the subsequent denial of the motion for reconsideration by the Cavite court on July 12, 1972 meant complainants suffered no actual prejudice from the sale proceeding. However, the Court advised that as a precautionary measure, it would have been prudent for the sheriff to verify the status of the motion with the Cavite court and inquire with the Manila court regarding any pending motions to suspend, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Nevertheless, his actions did not constitute an abuse of authority or negligence warranting administrative sanction.