G.R. No. A.M. No. P-04-1865. July 28, 2005.
Nelda Apostol, Complainant, vs. Junie Jovencio Ipac, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court – Office of the Clerk of Court, Malolos City, Respondent.

FACTS

In an ejectment case, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a final decision in favor of Silver Spirit Plastics, Inc. against CWB Plastics Corporation. A writ of execution was issued to enforce monetary awards. Respondent Sheriff Junie Ipac served the writ on CWB and later levied on a Toyota Corolla vehicle. Complainant Nelda Apostol, CWB’s secretary/accountant, protested the levy, claiming ownership. She presented a Certificate of Registration and a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 24, 2003, showing CWB sold her the vehicle after the writ was served but before the levy.
Complainant filed an administrative complaint, alleging respondent committed grave abuse of authority by levying on her property. She argued the sheriff ignored her third-party claim and failed to state it in the Certificate of Sale. Respondent countered that the sale was a fraudulent conveyance to hinder execution, noting the vehicle was registered to CWB during litigation and transferred only after the writ’s service.

ISSUE

Whether Respondent Sheriff Junie Ipac is administratively liable for levying on the vehicle despite a third-party ownership claim.

RULING

No, the respondent sheriff is not administratively liable. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The legal logic centers on the proper procedure for handling third-party claims under Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court. When a property levied upon is claimed by a third person, the sheriff is not required to adjudicate the claim’s validity. His duty is to either proceed with the levy if the judgment creditor posts an indemnity bond or require the third-party claimant to file a separate action to assert ownership.
Here, the judgment creditor, Silver Spirit, posted an indemnity bond approved by the court before the auction. This bond served to protect the sheriff from personal liability and to indemnify the third-party claimant for any damages. Consequently, respondent acted within his authority by proceeding with the levy and sale after the bond was secured. Complainant’s remedy was to file a reinvindicatory action against the purchaser at auction, not to hold the sheriff administratively liable. The charge regarding the Certificate of Sale also failed, as the document was issued by a different sheriff. The Court found no abuse of authority, as the respondent followed the prescribed legal procedure.