G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-00-1446; June 6, 2001
Case Parties: PATERNO R. PLANTILLA, complainant, vs. RODRIGO G. BALIWAG, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City (Branch 30), respondent.

FACTS

This is an administrative complaint filed by retired Col. Paterno R. Plantilla, administrator of the judgment debtors Spouses Mariano L. Orga and Eva R. Plantilla, against Sheriff Rodrigo G. Baliwag for serious irregularities in implementing a Writ of Execution dated January 16, 1998. The writ pertained to a decision ordering, among other things, the defendants to pay Milagros Suiza “the sum of P1,000.00 per harvest with legal interest thereon until fully paid” for unrealized coconut shares from August 1979 until reinstatement, plus P8,000.00 in attorney’s fees. The complainant alleged that respondent sheriff: 1) served the writ on him instead of the defendants; 2) unilaterally specified eight harvests per year; 3) imposed a 12% per annum interest rate on the computed amounts from August 1979, compounded annually, resulting in a total demand of P481,340.00; 4) immediately levied on the debtors’ land worth millions without offering them the option to choose which property to levy; and 5) failed to properly notify the defendants of the auction sale and to state the sale amount in the notices. In his defense, the sheriff claimed he sent the writ to the defendants in the U.S. but it was returned, service on the administrator was sufficient, the number of harvests was established in prior court proceedings, and he believed the 12% interest was legal.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Rodrigo G. Baliwag committed malfeasance through serious irregularities in the implementation of the Writ of Execution.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of malfeasance. The Court ruled that the duty to compute the exact amounts due under a writ of execution, including interests, is a judicial function that belongs to the judge issuing the writ, not to the sheriff enforcing it. The sheriff’s role is purely ministerial. In this case, the writ did not specify the exact monetary total, the number of harvests per year, or the applicable legal interest rate. By taking it upon himself to determine these variables—specifically by applying a 12% interest rate instead of the correct 6% rate applicable to damages (as the P1,000.00 per harvest was in the nature of damages)—and computing the final amount, respondent sheriff arrogated judicial functions. He acted arbitrarily and without authority, to the prejudice of the complainant. For this act of malfeasance, the Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The Court clarified that it could not penalize him for the erroneous computation itself, as that was not his duty, but for improperly assuming the judicial task of determining the amount due.