G.R. No. P-60 July 31, 1978
MELBA C. AMOLADOR, complainant, vs. JUAN FELICIDARIO, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case stemmed from a complaint filed by Melba C. Amolador against Deputy Sheriff Juan Felicidario of Quezon City for falsification, gross misconduct, and dishonesty. The charges related to the execution sale of a property belonging to complainant’s father, Serafin G. Coruña, to satisfy a judgment in Civil Case No. Q-8936. The record shows that after a sale of personal properties on October 8, 1969, which complainant attended, respondent subsequently levied on and sold Coruña’s real property on January 8, 1970, to the judgment creditor for P2,071.00.
Complainant alleged the judgment had been fully satisfied by the prior sale of a television set and cash payments, making the real property sale unnecessary. She further charged that respondent falsified the sheriff’s notice by making it appear she received a copy of the notice for the January 1970 sale, when she did not. Respondent defended his actions by claiming a balance remained on the judgment, necessitating the real property sale, and that complainant refused to sign the acknowledgment of receipt, so he merely had her name written on the notice for reference.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Juan Felicidario is administratively liable for his actions in connection with the execution sale.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court, agreeing with the findings of the Investigating Judge, found respondent’s defense not credible. The notation “Rec’d copy, Melba Coruna” on the notice of sale was a falsification intended to falsely certify proper service. His claim that it was merely a reminder was an afterthought. Furthermore, respondent violated procedural rules by filing his sheriff’s return on the writ of execution only in November 1972, years after its issuance in July 1969, contrary to the mandate of Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. This delay ensured the redemption period for the property had lapsed by the time the return was made.
The Court found these acts constituted serious misconduct, dishonesty, and falsification. However, regarding the penalty, the Court noted that respondent was a “local sheriff” appointed by the Quezon City Mayor under a city charter, with salary drawn from city funds. Following the precedent in Bagatsing vs. Herrera, the disciplinary authority to remove or suspend him lies with the City Mayor. The Supreme Court’s power over such appointees lies in its control over the judicial function of serving court processes. Consequently, the Court revoked the authority it had granted to respondent to act as a sheriff. This revocation effectively renders him unable to perform his duties, leaving the appointing authority with no recourse but to effect his separation from service. The Court also noted that the administrative finding was without prejudice to any criminal or civil actions the aggrieved parties may pursue.