G.R. No. P-94-1108. August 23, 1995
MARIANETTE VILLAREAL, complainant, vs. ROLANDO T. RARAMA, RESTITUTO MADRAZO, FIDEL CASUYON, and AGUINALDO DEL CAMPO, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Marianette Villareal filed an administrative complaint against four sheriffs of the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC) of Davao City, alleging they conspired to maliciously serve a writ of execution upon her. The writ, issued in Civil Case No. 548-E-M for collection of a sum of money, was directed against judgment debtor Felimon Cangrejo. On April 25, 1994, respondent Sheriff Rolando T. Rarama, accompanied by the other respondents and bank employees, went to Villareal’s house in Digos. Rarama informed her they would attach her properties because she had lost a case. Villareal objected, pointing out the writ named Cangrejo, not her. Despite her protests and pleas to consult a lawyer, respondents levied upon and took several household items. Villareal claimed she was forced to sign an inventory receipt and later paid P10,000.00 to the bank to secure the release of her properties.
Respondents, in their defense, claimed they initially went to Villareal’s house only to inquire about Cangrejo’s address. They alleged that upon being shown the writ, Villareal admitted she was the principal obligor and voluntarily offered her properties as security for her obligation. They denied any forcible taking and asserted the other respondent sheriffs were merely along for the ride as they lived in Digos.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Rolando T. Rarama committed misconduct in the enforcement of the alias writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, respondent Rarama is guilty of serious misconduct. The Court emphasized that a sheriff’s duty in executing a writ is purely ministerial. He must implement the directive of the court strictly in accordance with the writ’s letter. A sheriff has no authority to levy upon the property of any person other than the judgment debtor named in the writ. If he does so, the writ affords him no justification, as such acts fall outside the legal mandate. Execution must conform exactly to the dispositive portion of the decision, not merely to the case title.
In this case, the alias writ of execution was issued solely against Felimon Cangrejo. The dispositive portion of the judgment was against Cangrejo alone, “without prejudice to his right to proceed against his co-debtors.” Therefore, levying upon Villareal’s property was a clear deviation from and disobedience to the court’s lawful order. The fact that Villareal was named in the case title as a defendant is irrelevant for purposes of execution. Rarama’s improvident act of enforcing the judgment against a non-party debtor warrants disciplinary action. The Court found the recommended three-month suspension appropriate but, following its policy, imposed a fine of P10,000.00 instead, with a stern warning. The complaint against the other three sheriffs was dismissed for lack of merit, as their presence did not establish conspiracy in the unlawful levy.