A.M. No. P-05-1934; April 11, 2005
JOSE and MILAGROS VILLACERAN, Complainants, vs. WILMER M. BELTEJAR, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Santiago City, Branch 2, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Jose and Milagros Villaceran were acquitted in criminal cases but ordered to pay damages. Respondent Sheriff Wilmer M. Beltejar levied on their Bulacan lots to satisfy the judgment. He initially scheduled a public auction for May 8, 2003, at the MTCC office in Santiago City, then changed the venue to the Barangay Hall in Marilao, Bulacan. Complainant Jose Villaceran and an interested bidder went to the Barangay Hall on the said date, but the sheriff did not appear, and no sale was conducted, as certified by the Barangay Captain. Despite this, respondent issued a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale indicating a sale was held and that the judgment creditor, Jaime E. Co, was the highest bidder. Complainants charged respondent with dishonesty, oppression, and falsification.
Respondent denied the charges, claiming the auction was held at the original MTCC venue in Santiago City. He alleged he changed the venue back upon the request of Jaime E. Co and that he notified complainants’ counsel and the Barangay Captain of this reversion. The case was referred for investigation, which found that a sale was indeed conducted at the MTCC, not in Bulacan, but that complainants were not properly notified of this final venue change.

ISSUE

Whether respondent sheriff is administratively liable for his actions concerning the execution sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the serious charges of dishonesty, oppression, and falsification for lack of merit, as the investigative findings established an auction did occur. However, the Court found respondent liable for Simple Neglect of Duty. The legal logic centers on his failure to strictly comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for execution sales under Section 15, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The rules require a written notice to the judgment obligor at least three days before the sale, specifying the place, date, and exact time. The investigator found respondent failed to provide this requisite written notice to the complainants regarding the final change of venue back to Santiago City. His reliance on a letter to complainants’ counsel was insufficient to constitute proper compliance.
As a sheriff, respondent is bound to know and meticulously follow these rules. His failure to do so, resulting from carelessness or indifference, constitutes simple neglect of duty—a less grave offense. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are designed to ensure order and fairness, and sheriffs must adhere to them with professionalism. For this first offense, the penalty is suspension for one month with a stern warning.