A.M. No. 895. May 24, 1977. ROSALINA BASA, complainant, vs. ATTY. EMMA C. ONA, respondent.
FACTS:

Complainant Rosalina Basa executed a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land to secure a P50,000.00 loan from Ruben Alonzo and Salvador Monroy. The mortgage contract stipulated a 12% annual interest and authorized extrajudicial foreclosure under Act 3135, including attorney’s fees equivalent to 25% of the obligation. Upon Basa’s failure to pay, the mortgagees initiated extrajudicial foreclosure. At the auction sale conducted by Assistant Sheriff Alejandro Reyes on July 19, 1971, the mortgagees submitted the sole bid for P69,568.50, which included the principal, accrued interest, publication fees, and P12,500.00 as attorney’s fees per the contract. Respondent Atty. Emma C. Ona, as Ex-Officio Sheriff, issued the corresponding certificate of sale. Basa failed to redeem the property within the statutory period.
Subsequently, Basa and her children filed a civil case (C-2573) seeking to annul the mortgage and foreclosure sale. The parties entered into a compromise agreement approved by the court on January 4, 1973, granting the Basas a six-month period to redeem the property for P54,000.00. The Basas failed to redeem and also failed to comply with a subsequent agreement extending their option. The court eventually issued a writ of execution, and possession was delivered to the mortgagees. Following her complete dispossession, Basa filed this administrative complaint against Atty. Ona, alleging “violation of law, remission of duty and grave misconduct” for including the P12,500.00 attorney’s fees in the foreclosure bid, which she claimed was unconscionable.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Emma C. Ona, in her capacity as Ex-Officio Sheriff, committed a violation of law or grave misconduct by allowing the inclusion of the stipulated 25% attorney’s fees in the computation of the foreclosure bid.

RULING

The Court exonerated respondent Atty. Emma C. Ona and dismissed the complaint. The legal logic is clear: the sheriff’s duty in an extrajudicial foreclosure is ministerial and bound by the terms of the contract between the parties and the provisions of Act 3135. The real estate mortgage contract expressly stipulated that attorney’s fees equivalent to 25% of the obligation could be included in the foreclosure proceedings. Respondent, through her deputy, merely enforced this contractual stipulation. There was no discretion to alter the terms; the inclusion of the P12,500.00 was a direct application of the agreement which constitutes the law between the parties.
Furthermore, the complainant’s subsequent acts constituted a waiver of her right to challenge the auction sale’s validity. By entering into a court-approved compromise agreement in Civil Case No. C-2573, wherein she agreed to redeem the property for a specified sum, she effectively acquiesced to the foreclosure proceedings and its outcomes, including the computation of the bid. Her failure to redeem under that compromise does not revive a challenge to the sheriff’s ministerial acts performed years earlier. The Court found no evidence of illegality, corruption, or misconduct in respondent’s performance of her official duty, which was strictly in accordance with the governing contract and law.