A.M. No. P-86-33, August 15, 1988
Filipina Yap Sy vs. Carmelito D. Catajan

FACTS

Complainant Filipina Yap Sy was a judgment debtor in Civil Case No. 4493. On June 20, 1986, respondent Deputy Sheriff Carmelito D. Catajan, implementing an Alias Writ of Execution, levied upon complainant’s Sony television and Betamax machine from her residence. Complainant protested, asserting these items were subject to a chattel mortgage in favor of Betty D. Sy. Despite a formal third-party claim filed by Betty D. Sy on June 24, 1986, respondent proceeded with a sheriff’s sale on July 7, 1986, selling the television set to the judgment creditor, Maligaya Financing Corporation, for P4,000.00.
In her administrative complaint, Yap Sy charged respondent with abuse of authority for three specific violations: first, failing to mention the third-party claim in the Certificate of Sale as required by Section 28, Rule 39; second, not requiring the judgment creditor to pay its bid in cash despite the third-party claim, contrary to Section 23, Rule 39; and third, conducting a defective auction sale by allegedly delaying notice of the bond posted by the judgment creditor. Respondent defended his actions by questioning the validity and timeliness of the chattel mortgage registration and suggesting the levied TV’s size differed from the mortgaged one, though the serial numbers matched.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Carmelito D. Catajan committed abuse of authority or negligence in the execution of his duties.

RULING

Yes, the Court found respondent Catajan negligent in the performance of his official duties. The legal logic is anchored on strict compliance with procedural rules governing execution, particularly when third-party claims are involved. Regarding the first charge, Section 28, Rule 39 explicitly mandates that a sheriff’s certificate of sale must expressly mention the existence of any third-party claim. Respondent’s failure to do so was unjustified. His attempts to cast doubt on the chattel mortgage—by noting a discrepancy in the television’s described size and the mortgage’s registration date—were irrelevant and beyond his authority to adjudicate. A sheriff cannot unilaterally determine the validity of a third-party claim; his duty is to note its existence.
Concerning the second charge, Section 23, Rule 39 states that a judgment creditor, as purchaser, need not pay the bid in cash only if no third-party claim has been filed. Since a third-party claim was formally filed, the rule required respondent to demand cash payment from the judgment creditor. The Court, citing Filipinas Colleges, Inc. v. Garcia Timbang and Matias v. Provincial Sheriff of Nueva Ecija, emphasized this is a prudential measure to protect the sheriff from potential liability and to ensure the proceeds are available for court disposition should litigation ensue. Respondent’s failure to require cash payment constituted a clear disregard of this mandatory rule.
The Court, however, found no sufficient evidence of bad faith, only negligence. Consequently, in a prior Resolution dated March 7, 1988, it imposed a fine equivalent to one month’s salary with a stern warning. The present Resolution denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration and reiterated the penalty. The Court underscored that sheriffs must perform their ministerial duties with utmost care and strict adherence to the Rules of Court to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.