G.R. No. A.M. No. P-14-3281, January 28, 2015
FELISICIMO R. SABIJON and ZENAIDA A. SABIJON, Complainants, vs. BENEDICT M. DE JUAN, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF KABACAN, NORTH COTABATO, BRANCH 22, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Felisicimo and Zenaida Sabijon charged respondent Sheriff Benedict M. De Juan with Grave Misconduct and Malfeasance. The case stemmed from a vehicular accident on May 19, 2007, involving Felisicimo’s Isuzu Elf Truck, which complainants used for their livelihood, and a van owned by PO2 Recto Aquino. After the parties failed to settle, PO2 Aquino filed a civil case for damages. On December 8, 2011, respondent and PO2 Aquino went to complainants’ residence and, pursuant to a Writ of Execution dated June 14, 2011, forcibly took the truck. Complainants alleged irregularities: they were not furnished a Notice of Sheriff’s Sale; they did not receive any excess proceeds from an alleged auction, claiming the truck’s value was significantly higher than the judgment debt of less than ₱80,000; respondent and PO2 Aquino connived to appropriate the truck for personal benefit; and Zenaida later saw the truck being driven by another person.
In his defense, respondent claimed he was merely enforcing the writ in good faith. He levied the truck on December 8, 2011, and issued a Notice of Sale on Execution setting a public auction for December 29, 2011. He asserted that since nobody participated, the vehicle was awarded to PO2 Aquino. Respondent admitted failing to submit a Sheriff’s Return, attributing this to being the only sheriff in the MCTC. He also contested the truck’s valuation, claiming it was worth only about ₱80,000 due to its poor engine and rotten under chassis.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for Grave Abuse of Authority (Oppression) and Simple Neglect of Duty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for Grave Abuse of Authority and Simple Neglect of Duty. The Court concurred with the OCA’s findings that respondent deviated from the procedure under the Rules of Court for enforcing judgments. Specifically, he: (a) immediately levied upon the truck without giving the judgment debtors the option to choose which property to levy, as required under Section 9, Rule 39; (b) failed to keep the levied property securely in his custody; and (c) did not prepare and furnish a Sheriff’s Return within the prescribed period under Section 14, Rule 39. His immediate levy deprived complainants of their statutory option and prejudiced their livelihood. His failure to submit a return cast serious doubt on whether an actual auction sale occurred. The Court did not credit his valuation of the truck, noting it was mortgaged for ₱149,272.00 in November 2011.
Regarding the penalty, the Court modified the OCA’s recommendation. Grave Abuse of Authority is the more serious offense (punishable by suspension of 6 months and 1 day to 1 year for first offense), with Simple Neglect of Duty treated as an aggravating circumstance. While respondent’s first offense and over 19 years of service were mitigating, the presence of an aggravating circumstance warranted the imposition of the maximum penalty. Thus, respondent was suspended for one year.