A.M. No. P-02-1539; January 24, 2002
Ramon C. Casano, petitioner, vs. Arnel C. Magat, Sheriff IV, RTC – Office of the Clerk of Court, Biñan, Laguna, respondent.

FACTS

Ramon C. Casano filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Arnel C. Magat for Grave Abuse of Authority and/or Gross Ignorance of the Law. The complaint stemmed from respondent sheriff’s conduct in proceeding with an extrajudicial foreclosure sale of a property mortgaged by the Casano spouses to Teresita Manabat. Complainant, acting for the mortgagors’ heirs, sent a letter dated November 17, 1998, protesting the sale on the ground that the real estate mortgage contract contained no special power authorizing the mortgagee to foreclose extrajudicially under Act No. 3135 .
In his Comment, respondent sheriff defended his actions by claiming it was his ministerial duty to proceed with the sale upon the mortgagee’s application. He asserted that the mortgagee’s counsel advised him to continue unless a temporary restraining order was secured, and he relied on this assurance. The auction sale proceeded on December 1, 1998, with the mortgagee as the highest bidder, though its effects were later rendered ineffectual due to the mortgagee’s failure to submit a required Affidavit of Publication.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Arnel C. Magat is administratively liable for proceeding with the extrajudicial foreclosure sale despite the protest regarding the absence of the requisite special power in the mortgage contract.

RULING

Yes, respondent sheriff is administratively liable, but for Neglect of Duty, not the more serious charges initially filed. The Supreme Court emphasized that extrajudicial foreclosure under Act No. 3135 is permissible only if the real estate mortgage contract contains a special power granting that authority to the mortgagee. At the time material to this case, Administrative Order No. 3 placed upon the sheriff’s office the duty to examine applications for extrajudicial foreclosure to ensure compliance with Act No. 3135 ’s requirements.
The Court found that respondent sheriff neglected this duty. He blindly relied on the mortgagee’s counsel’s assurances instead of personally verifying the mortgage contract, which was annexed to the application and clearly lacked the necessary special power. His duty was not purely ministerial; sheriffs must act with prudence and are agents of the law, not of the parties. The protest letter provided ample time before the scheduled sale for respondent to either examine the document himself or consult his superiors. His failure to do so constituted neglect. Considering his similar infraction in a prior case had not yet been promulgated when these acts occurred, the Court imposed a fine of ₱5,000.00 with a warning against repetition.