AM P 04 1904; (October, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-04-1904. October 25, 2005
Miramar Fish Co. Inc., represented by Teodulo C. Gabor, Complainant, vs. Bienvenido Jalon, Danilo Han and Candido J. Abrera, all Sheriffs III of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Zamboanga City, Respondents.
FACTS
The respondents, Sheriffs III Bienvenido Jalon, Danilo Han, and Candido Abrera, enforced a writ of execution from a Supreme Court decision ordering Mar Fishing Company, Inc. to pay monetary awards to dismissed employees. In enforcing the writ, the sheriffs levied upon real properties of Mar Fishing valued at over Fourteen Million Pesos (₱14,000,000.00). Subsequently, they also levied five motor vehicles, allegedly valued at over One Million Pesos (₱1,000,000.00), which were registered in Mar Fishing’s name but had been previously sold to Miramar Fish Co. Inc. Miramar filed an administrative complaint, alleging grave abuse of authority for attaching properties with values far exceeding the judgment debt of approximately ₱401,783.35 and for levying properties no longer owned by the judgment obligor.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent sheriffs are administratively liable for their manner of enforcing the writ of execution.
RULING
Yes, the respondent sheriffs are administratively liable for grave abuse of authority. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that the sheriffs failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 9, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court for enforcing money judgments. The rules require the sheriff to first demand immediate payment from the judgment obligor. If payment cannot be made, the sheriff must levy properties, but must give the obligor the option to choose which property to levy. If the obligor does not exercise this option, the sheriff must first levy on personal properties, and only if those are insufficient, proceed to levy on real properties. Furthermore, the sheriff must sell only so much of the property as is sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees.
The Court found that the sheriffs did not claim to have made the requisite demand for immediate payment. They also improperly levied on real property first without showing that personal properties were insufficient, and they levied properties with a total value grossly disproportionate to the judgment debt of about ₱400,000, thereby depriving the judgment obligor of the option to choose. Their claim of acting with expediency did not justify their departure from the clear rules. While the recommended penalty was a ₱10,000 fine, the Court reduced it to ₱5,000 for each respondent, with a stern warning.