G.R. No. P-04-1767. August 12, 2004.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., represented by EDUARDO CENIZA, petitioner, vs. SEVERINO DC BALUBAR, JR., Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 118, Pasay City, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case arose from the implementation of a writ of execution pending appeal. In a civil case for specific performance filed by PAL Employees Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (PESALA) against Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), the trial court ordered PAL to remit a sum of money to PESALA. After PAL was found guilty of indirect contempt for non-compliance, PESALA secured an order for execution pending appeal. Respondent Sheriff Severino DC Balubar, Jr. was directed to implement the writ.
On December 11, 2002, the sheriff served the writ of execution on PAL’s Legal Department. However, on the same day, and even prior to PAL’s receipt of the writ, he simultaneously served notices of garnishment on several depository banks of PAL. One bank, Allied Banking Corporation, confirmed it held sufficient funds to cover the judgment debt. PAL, through its counsel, subsequently requested the sheriff to lift the garnishments on the other banks, arguing that the multiple garnishments exceeded the amount necessary to satisfy the judgment and violated procedural rules. The sheriff refused, stating he would only lift the other garnishments after Allied Bank delivered the funds, which it had not done within the period he demanded.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Balubar, Jr. committed an administrative offense in the manner he executed the money judgment against PAL.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent sheriff administratively liable for simple neglect of duty. The Court emphasized that while sheriffs must execute writs promptly, they must strictly follow the procedure outlined in Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for enforcing money judgments. The rule requires the sheriff to first demand payment from the judgment obligor. Only if the obligor fails to pay should the sheriff proceed to levy on the obligor’s properties, including garnishment of bank accounts.
The evidence clearly showed that respondent sheriff served the notices of garnishment on PAL’s banks even before PAL itself received the writ of execution and, critically, without first making a demand upon PAL for immediate payment of the judgment debt. By garnishing multiple bank accounts simultaneously without affording PAL the opportunity to settle the obligation voluntarily, the sheriff acted in a manner contrary to the rules. His conduct, while perhaps aimed at expeditious enforcement, deprived the judgment obligor of its right to pay directly and risked levying on amounts exceeding the judgment. The Court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a stern warning.