G.R. No. A.M. No. P-88-241 May 9, 1989
LOURDES PADOLINA, complainant, vs. RUBEN L. HENSON, DEPUTY SHERIFF, respondent.

FACTS

A sworn complaint was filed by Lourdes Padolina charging Deputy Sheriff Ruben L. Henson with malfeasance in connection with an auction sale. The Municipal Trial Court had issued a writ of execution to satisfy a judgment debt of P2,538 plus interest against Padolina in favor of Advent Educational System, Inc. On June 9, 1988, respondent sheriff levied four of complainant’s electronic appliances with a total declared value of P30,000. A notice of sale was posted for June 20, 1988. Three days before the scheduled sale, Padolina paid P2,300 to the Clerk of Court, leaving an unpaid balance of only P238 plus interest. According to Padolina, she and the respondent had an understanding that the sale would not proceed, which the respondent denied.
Despite the substantial payment, respondent sheriff proceeded with the auction sale as scheduled. He sold the two most expensive levied items—a Sony colored TV and a Casio electronic organ, together valued at P20,000—to a lone bidder for only P3,000. This sale was to satisfy the minimal remaining balance of the judgment debt. Respondent alleged the levied properties were defective and not worth more than the debt, justifying the sale.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Ruben L. Henson is guilty of grave misconduct in the implementation of the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on his violation of specific rules governing execution and the evident bad faith in his actions. First, under Section 15, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, when more property than is sufficient to satisfy the judgment is available, the officer must levy only on such part as is amply sufficient. Here, the levy on properties worth P30,000 for a debt of P2,538 was already excessive. More egregiously, after the complainant paid P2,300, leaving a minuscule balance, the respondent still sold two high-value items for a pittance. This constituted a sale of property grossly in excess of the amount needed, contravening the rule.
Second, the Court found bad faith and an intent to defraud. The respondent proceeded with the sale despite knowledge of the substantial payment made to the Clerk of Court, who was the ex-officio sheriff and his immediate superior. His claim that the payment was insufficient is untenable, as the balance was trivial. The selection of the two most expensive items, rather than the cheaper ones, and their sale at a grossly inadequate price, indicated either a desire to favor the bidder or to personally benefit. The respondent’s allegations of defectiveness were unsupported, as the properties were not described as inoperable in the levy documents. His actions demonstrated serious misconduct, akin to the gross misconduct penalized in prior jurisprudence. Consequently, dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and prejudice to reinstatement was imposed.