G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-96-1205
Date: July 24, 1997

Case Parties: OSCAR P. DE LOS REYES, complainant, vs. ESTEBAN H. ERISPE, JR., Sheriff III, MeTC, Branch 79, Las Piñas, Metro Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Oscar P. de los Reyes was the plaintiff in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 4033) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Las Piñas, Branch 79. A decision was rendered in his favor on October 10, 1994, ordering the defendants to vacate the premises and pay him P115,000.00 as rentals. A writ of execution was issued on January 3, 1995. Respondent Sheriff Esteban H. Erispe, Jr. implemented the writ on January 26, 1995, ejecting the defendants and levying upon nine (9) appliances and furniture items found on the premises, which he described as mostly old and out of order. The sheriff allegedly took these levied items to his sister’s house and gave only two items (a Sony component set and a Tatung TV) to the complainant.
Subsequently, on February 27, 1995, respondent prepared a motion for an alias writ of execution, which was granted on March 13, 1995. Under this alias writ, he levied upon eight (8) more appliances of the judgment debtors. On May 15, 1995, he obtained court authority to “break open” the premises to take these items. He scheduled a public auction for August 25, 1995, at his residence. Complainant alleged that no auction actually took place on that date. Instead, respondent later informed him that one appliance (a La Germania Gas Range) was bought by his mother for P1,500.00, a Goldstar Microwave Oven was pawned by respondent for P1,500.00, a Westinghouse Refrigerator was sold for P4,500.00 (of which only P3,700.00 was given to complainant), and a sala set was at his sister’s house with a promise to pay P5,000.00. Complainant eventually retrieved some items himself after repeated failed meetings with the sheriff.
Respondent admitted pawning the microwave oven but claimed complainant agreed to its delayed delivery. He denied taking the items from the first levy, asserting they were discarded by complainant as junk, with one item given as a gift to his assistant and the dining set given to him by complainant as a gift for his expenses. He claimed the items from the alias writ were stored at his sister’s house with complainant’s consent for safekeeping and to avoid storage fees. He denied disregarding procedure, stating a notice of auction was posted.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) noted respondent had two prior administrative cases: one (A.M. No. P-94-1044) for Grave Misconduct in implementing a writ, for which he was admonished and sternly warned, and another (A.M. No. P-96-1191) for gross dereliction of duty and gross exaction, pending resolution.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Esteban H. Erispe, Jr. is guilty of grave/gross misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice for his irregular actions in implementing the writs of execution in Civil Case No. 4033.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent GUILTY of gross misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Court ordered his DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement benefits and disqualification for reemployment in any government office, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
The Court held:
1. Respondent had no discretion to levy upon property he knew was old and unserviceable and then fail to conduct a public auction sale, especially when other valuable properties of the debtor were available. His duty was to execute the writ with reasonable alacrity and fidelity.
2. Respondent improperly accepted, as gifts, some of the levied items (the dining set, according to his claim). A sheriff is only entitled to fees as prescribed by law (4% of the first P4,000 and 2% of sums in excess). Accepting anything beyond this, whether cash or in kind, violates Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) and is inimical to the service.
3. The procedure for execution under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is mandatory. Levied property must be sold at public auction. Any excess proceeds must be returned to the judgment debtor. It was highly irregular for the sheriff to appropriate properties for himself and the judgment creditor without a public sale and to seek an alias writ without first accounting for the satisfaction of the judgment.
4. Respondent’s actions amounted to a “pillage” of the judgment debtor’s possessions. His prior admonition and stern warning in a similar case (A.M. No. P-94-1044) for Grave Misconduct made his present repeated misconduct more egregious, justifying dismissal.