G.R. No. A.M. No. P-04-1857. March 16, 2005
MERLINDA L. DAGOOC, Complainant, vs. ROBERTO A. ERLINA, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 40, Tandag, Surigao del Sur, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Merlinda Dagooc obtained a final and executory judgment by compromise agreement. A writ of execution was issued and endorsed to respondent Sheriff Roberto Erlina for enforcement. The defendants could not pay the money judgment. Instead of levying on the defendants’ properties, Sheriff Erlina asked them to execute promissory notes in favor of the complainant, which he then instructed her to collect. He subsequently filed a return of service stating the defendants were insolvent.
The complainant discovered the defendants owned real properties, contrary to the sheriff’s return. In his defense, Sheriff Erlina claimed he attempted to levy on personal properties but found them exempt. He alleged the provincial assessor certified the defendants owned no real properties. He denied instructing the complainant to collect via promissory notes, advising her instead to secure an alias writ.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Erlina is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Sheriff Erlina guilty of inefficiency and incompetence. The Court emphasized that sheriffs must perform their duties with utmost skill and diligence, as they are repositories of public trust. The ruling is anchored on his gross ignorance of the procedure for executing money judgments under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Section 9, Rule 39 mandates that a money judgment is enforced by demanding immediate payment in cash, certified check, or any form acceptable to the judgment obligee. Promissory notes are not a sanctioned mode of payment unless accepted by the obligee, which the complainant clearly opposed. When the debtor cannot pay, the sheriff must levy on properties. The right to claim exemptions is personal to the judgment debtor and cannot be invoked by the sheriff. Respondent erroneously claimed exemptions on the debtors’ behalf instead of proceeding with the levy.
Furthermore, his return of service declaring insolvency was negligent, as the debtors owned leviable real properties. Even assuming insolvency, he failed to explore garnishment of salaries as allowed under the Rules. There was also no need for an alias writ, as the original writ remained effective. His actions demonstrated a fundamental failure to understand and faithfully execute his ministerial duties, causing prejudice to the complainant. The Court suspended him from service for one year.