AM P 11 2888; (July, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. P-11-2888. July 27, 2011.
Golden Sun Finance Corporation, represented by Rachelle L. Marmito, Complainant, vs. Ricardo R. Albano, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 62, Makati City, Respondent.
FACTS
Golden Sun Finance Corporation (complainant) filed an administrative complaint against Ricardo R. Albano (respondent), Sheriff III of MeTC Branch 62, Makati City, for negligence and grave misconduct. The complainant had filed a civil case for recovery of a Honda Civic sedan against Lucila S. Reyes, which was encumbered in the complainant’s favor. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a writ of replevin in favor of the complainant. However, the respondent sheriff had previously levied upon the same vehicle by virtue of a writ of execution issued in Criminal Case Nos. 353822-23 for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against Reyes. The vehicle was sold at public auction on April 29, 2009, to Royal Makati Credit Resource, and a Certificate of Sale was issued. The complainant alleged the levy and sale were illegal because the respondent failed to check the Certificate of Registration, which would have revealed the encumbrance, and argued its claim should have priority. The respondent countered he had no knowledge of the encumbrance or the replevin case, as the Certificate of Registration was not shown to him, and he acted within his ministerial duty in enforcing the writ. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended finding the respondent liable for simple neglect of duty, citing constructive notice of the encumbrance and referencing Caja vs. Nanquil, and recommended a one-month-and-one-day suspension without pay.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Ricardo R. Albano is administratively liable for simple neglect of duty for levying upon and selling an encumbered vehicle without checking its Certificate of Registration.
RULING
The Court DISAGREED with the OCA’s recommendation and found NO sufficient basis to hold the respondent administratively liable for simple neglect of duty.
The Court held that under Section 9(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a sheriff may levy upon properties of the judgment debtor that are not exempt from execution. A mortgaged property remains subject to levy because the judgment debtor retains beneficial interest, as a mortgage merely secures an obligation and does not transfer ownership. Thus, the respondent properly levied on the vehicle owned by Reyes, the judgment debtor, regardless of the encumbrance. The Court clarified that the duty to execute a writ is ministerial, and the sheriff is not required to investigate third-party claims or encumbrances beyond the rules. The pendency of a replevin case does not prevent levy, as the complainant’s right to foreclose was still pending determination. The Court distinguished Caja vs. Nanquil, where liability arose from levying real property without first exhausting personal property and levying in excess of the judgment debt, not merely because the property was mortgaged. The responsibility to protect third-party interests lies with the third party through remedies under Rule 39 (e.g., filing an indemnity bond under Section 16). The complaint was dismissed for lack of merit.