AM 91 8 374 Omb; (November, 1994) (Digest)
A.M. No. 91-8-374-OMB. November 28, 1994. 1ST ENDORSEMENT DATED JUNE 3, 1991 OF ATTY. DANILO CUNANAN, HEAD EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. ESPERANZA F. CHOY, complainant, vs. RODRIGO SAURE, SHERIFF III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, KALOOKAN CITY, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Esperanza F. Choy, the judgment creditor in Civil Case No. 931 for collection of a sum of money, filed an unsworn letter-complaint against Sheriff Rodrigo Saure for dereliction of duty. The complaint stemmed from Saure’s implementation of a writ of execution to satisfy a judgment for P2,400.00 against defendant Nila Valencia. Saure levied upon some of Valencia’s personal properties and scheduled auction sales for March 11 and April 23, 1991. However, he did not take physical custody of the levied properties. The first sale did not proceed due to complainant’s absence, and the second failed because the defendant’s house was found padlocked and unoccupied.
In his Comment, respondent sheriff explained that he served the writ on the defendant’s son, scheduled the sales with notice, and sought barangay and police assistance. He claimed the sales were thwarted by the parties’ absences and the padlocked house. After these attempts, he explored levying on a mortgaged real property and submitted a Sheriff’s Return to the court.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Rodrigo Saure is administratively liable for dereliction of duty in the enforcement of the writ of execution.
RULING
Yes, respondent sheriff is administratively liable. The Court, adopting the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator, emphasized that a sheriff’s duty in executing a money judgment under Rule 39, Section 15 of the Revised Rules of Court requires a valid levy on the property. Levy is indispensable to a valid execution sale and entails taking custody or control of the property to place it under the court’s authority. Respondent’s admission that he left the levied personal properties in the defendant’s possession constituted a serious breach of this duty. His failure to take physical custody allowed the judgment debtor to potentially dispose of the assets, rendering the levy ineffective and impeding the execution process.
The Court stressed that execution is the life of the law, and sheriffs must act with dispatch to ensure the finality of judgments. While the recommended fine was reduced from P5,000.00 to P2,000.00 considering the modest judgment amount and respondent’s first offense, his actions fell short of the circumspection required of court officers. He was fined P2,000.00 and sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.