G.R. No. P-01-1449. February 24, 2003.
Clementino Imperial, petitioner, vs. Mariano F. Santiago, Jr., Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 139, Makati City, respondent.

FACTS

Clementino Imperial, President of Laoang Shipping Corporation, filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Mariano F. Santiago, Jr. for Grave Abuse of Authority and Grave Misconduct. The charge stemmed from respondent’s foreclosure and auction sale of the vessel M/V Angela Ceferina, based on a contract of pledge executed by a former corporate officer. Respondent asserted the foreclosure was legal, citing a Certificate of Sale issued after a public auction. Complainant countered with a Certification from the Clerk of Court, Atty. Engracio M. Escasinas, Jr., which detailed multiple irregularities. These included the absence of a court record or docketing of the foreclosure, non-payment of prescribed fees, an improper venue (Makati) for a pledge executed in Manila, failure to notify the corporation and MARINA, and a physically impossible auction location, as the vessel could not be brought to the courthouse steps.
The case was referred for investigation to Judge Leticia P. Morales. She found respondent guilty, noting he erroneously treated the foreclosure of a pledge as analogous to an extra-judicial mortgage foreclosure. She highlighted that the statutory procedure for foreclosing a pledge is distinct and mandatory. The investigation further revealed respondent admitted to not ensuring the payment of required filing and docket fees to the Clerk of Court’s office prior to issuing the Certificate of Sale. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) adopted these findings and recommended dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Mariano F. Santiago, Jr. is administratively liable for Grave Abuse of Authority and Grave Misconduct in conducting the foreclosure sale of a pledged vessel.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty as charged and is dismissed from service. The legal logic is clear. Article 2112 of the Civil Code expressly mandates that the foreclosure of a pledge must be conducted before a notary public, not a sheriff. Respondent’s fundamental error in assuming the role of an auctioneer for a pledge foreclosure constituted gross ignorance of a basic and specific legal procedure. This is not a mere error in judgment but a disregard of a clear statutory command.
Furthermore, respondent compounded this violation by failing to follow the basic administrative protocols for sheriffs’ sales. His admission during investigation that he did not ensure the payment of the necessary filing and commission fees to the Clerk of Court before issuing the Certificate of Sale demonstrates a dereliction of duty and a lack of diligence. A sheriff’s authority is circumscribed by law and procedure; acting beyond it constitutes abuse of authority. The totality of his actions—conducting an unauthorized sale, ignoring venue and notice requirements, and failing to secure fee payments—evinces a pattern of misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial process. Such conduct warrants the supreme penalty of dismissal to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice.