AM P 94 1030; (July, 1995) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-94-1030. July 14, 1995. GABRIEL C. ARISTORENAS, ET AL., complainants, vs. ROGELIO S. MOLINA, DEPUTY SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCHES 24 AND 25, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, respondent.
FACTS
Complainants, defendants in Civil Case No. B-2722, were ordered by the trial court to pay a money judgment and for the partition of a co-owned property. They did not appeal. After the writ of execution for the money claim was returned unsatisfied, the trial court issued several alias writs. Respondent Deputy Sheriff Molina, pursuant to one such alias writ, issued a Notice of Levy and a Notice of Auction Sale on the property to satisfy the P23,600.00 judgment.
Complainants charged respondent administratively with excess of authority, usurpation of power, and conduct prejudicial to the service. They alleged the judgment was not yet final due to the pending partition, that the levy was on the entire property instead of their undivided shares, that the property’s value was excessive for the debt, and that the Notice of Auction Sale was not properly published.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Molina is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of execution.
RULING
No, respondent is not administratively liable. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The Court emphasized that a sheriff’s duty in executing a writ is purely ministerial. Respondent had no discretion to question the writ’s validity or to refuse its implementation. Complainants’ objections regarding the finality of the judgment, the scope of the levy, and the propriety of the execution are judicial in nature, which should have been raised in the trial court through appropriate proceedings, not in an administrative case against the sheriff.
On the specific allegations, the Notice of Levy correctly indicated it was on complainants’ rights and interests in the property, not the entire property absolutely. Regarding the property’s value, respondent presented a tax declaration showing an assessed value of only P9,884.27, which the Court accepted, noting no imputation of bad faith. Consequently, since the value did not exceed P50,000.00, the rules did not require newspaper publication; posting in three public places was sufficient. The Court found respondent performed his ministerial duty in accordance with the rules.