A.M. No. P-2443 December 14, 1981
R.M. SALAZAR JR. CONSTRUCTION, INC., complainant, vs. DEPUTY SHERIFF RODOLFO M. ESPINELI, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant R.M. Salazar Jr. Construction, Inc. filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Rodolfo M. Espineli for grave abuse of authority. The charge stemmed from Espineli’s enforcement of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 23736, where a judgment was rendered against the complainant for approximately P52,000.00. In November 1978, respondent levied upon three pieces of heavy equipment belonging to the complainant: a Komatsu bulldozer, a Kimco payloader, and a Toyota Hi-Lux pick-up. The complainant alleged these properties were worth about P735,000.00, making the levy patently excessive, confiscatory, and abusive, which forced the stoppage of its government construction projects and the laying off of workers.
In his defense, respondent sheriff explained that the issue of excessive levy had already been raised by the complainant in a Motion to Quash Levy before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which was denied for lack of merit. He relied on a valuation made by a collector and two mechanics for the judgment creditor, who assessed the equipment at around P100,000.00. The investigating Executive Judge recommended dismissal, finding no evidence submitted by the complainant to establish its claimed valuation and noting the properties were eventually released after arrangements between the parties.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Rodolfo M. Espineli is administratively liable for conducting an excessive levy on execution.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of misconduct. The legal logic centers on a sheriff’s ministerial duty in executing judgments. A sheriff must execute the writ strictly in accordance with its mandate and is required to levy only property reasonably sufficient to satisfy the judgment debt, taking care to avoid being oppressive. The Court disagreed with the investigating judge’s exoneration, noting that even without the complainant’s precise valuation evidence, it was readily apparent that the levied equipment—a bulldozer, a payloader, and a pick-up truck—had a market value far exceeding the P52,000.00 debt. Respondent, as an experienced officer, ought to have known this disparity.
The Court distinguished the case from instances where a levy’s validity was directly upheld in a judicial proceeding, as the denial of the Motion to Quash did not conclusively absolve respondent from administrative responsibility for his discretionary actions in the field. By levying on properties of such disproportionate value, respondent acted oppressively and failed to exercise the sound judgment and caution required of his office. This constitutes misconduct prejudicial to the service. Considering the circumstances and following precedent, the Court suspended Deputy Sheriff Rodolfo M. Espineli from office for six (6) months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.