A.M. No. P-07-2342; August 31, 2007
ROELA D. CO, Complainant, vs. ALLAN D. SILLADOR, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 62, Bago City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Roela D. Co, counsel for the judgment obligors in a civil case, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Sheriff Allan D. Sillador for partiality and malfeasance. The charges stemmed from respondent’s actions in enforcing a writ of execution. On the scheduled auction sale date, third-party claims were filed by the spouses of the judgment obligors. Respondent issued orders requiring the judgment obligee to post indemnity bonds by 4:00 p.m. that day, failing which the levied properties would be released. The judgment obligee failed to post the bonds but insisted the sale proceed, arguing the third-party claims were defective. Complainant objected, contending the properties should be released. Respondent nevertheless proceeded with the auction sale, which commenced at 3:40 p.m. and concluded at 4:45 p.m.
In a supplemental complaint, complainant alleged further irregularities in the redemption process. After the sale, the third-party claimants timely filed a notice of redemption and tendered payment via checks, which respondent initially accepted but returned the next day. Complainant was forced to consign the payment with the court. Although the judgment obligee later accepted the consigned checks, respondent subsequently caused a re-levy on the same properties for the unsatisfied judgment balance and annotated this on the titles.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Allan D. Sillador is administratively liable for his actions in conducting the auction sale and in the subsequent redemption proceedings.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found respondent violated clear procedural rules. Section 15(d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court mandates that an auction sale shall be held not earlier than 9:00 a.m. and not later than 2:00 p.m. By conducting the sale from 3:40 p.m. to 4:45 p.m., respondent committed a procedural infraction. His explanation that he was waiting for tax declarations to determine bond amounts does not excuse the violation, as the rule is mandatory and designed to prevent precisely the type of irregular, rushed proceedings that occurred.
Regarding the redemption, respondent’s actions were irregular and displayed a lack of circumspection. His initial acceptance and subsequent sudden return of the redemption checks, without clear justification, created unnecessary confusion and compelled the consignation. While his act of annotating the re-levy may have been technically grounded on the unsatisfied judgment, his overall handling of the execution and redemption processes demonstrated negligence and a failure to adhere to proper procedure with the required diligence. Sheriffs must act with strict compliance to rules and utmost care to preserve public trust in the administration of justice. Respondent’s actions fell short of this standard. The Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator, modifying the penalty to a FINE of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning.