G.R. No. P-07-2379 November 17, 2010
Antonio T. Ramas-Uypitching Jr., Complainant, vs. Vincent Horace Magalona, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Bacolod City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Antonio T. Ramas-Uypitching Jr., manager of Ramas-Uypitching Sons, Inc. (RUSI) Marketing, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Sheriff Vincent Horace Magalona for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty. The complaint stemmed from the execution of a judgment in Civil Case No. 4657, where respondent levied three motorcycles belonging to RUSI Marketing. Complainant alleged that RUSI Marketing was not a party to the case, and the levy damaged the company’s reputation and business dealings.
In his defense, respondent countered that he was merely implementing an Alias Writ of Execution, which directed satisfaction of the judgment against the properties of the stockholders of the defendant corporation, Powroll Construction Co., Inc. He asserted that the levy was proper because the stockholders of Powroll and RUSI Marketing were the same, as reflected in company records. Respondent also noted that the parties later reached an out-of-court settlement, resulting in full satisfaction of the judgment.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Magalona is administratively liable for implementing the writ of execution against the property of a corporation that was not a party to the case.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized that a sheriff’s duty in executing a writ is ministerial, not discretionary. He must execute the court’s order strictly according to its mandate. The Alias Writ of Execution in this case directed enforcement against the named stockholders of the defendant Powroll, not against a separate corporate entity.
The Court found that respondent overstepped his authority by levying the property of RUSI Marketing. A corporation possesses a legal personality separate and distinct from its stockholders. Consequently, corporate property cannot be seized to satisfy the personal indebtedness of its individual stockholders. Respondent failed to exercise the due care, prudence, and diligence required of a court officer. His actions disregarded the fundamental principle of corporate separateness and jeopardized the rights of a non-party. While the Office of the Court Administrator recommended a one-year suspension, the Court noted a supervening event: respondent had already been dismissed from service in a separate but related administrative case during the pendency of this matter.