G.R. No. 117213 . March 4, 1999. ARMANDO DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES MARIANO and SUSAN ONG, ROGELIO AGOOT, and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS:

Rogelio Agoot purchased sand from Victory Hardware, attended to by Susan Tan Ong, who issued a receipt listing Chua Po as proprietor. The sand was delivered a day early, causing a wall to collapse, which led to a death and injuries. Agoot was sued and filed third-party complaints against Chua Po in the Imus RTC. Judgement was rendered against Agoot, with Chua Po ordered to reimburse him. A writ of execution was issued, and Special Sheriff Armando De Guzman levied upon a truck believed to belong to Chua Po. Susan Tan Ong filed a third-party claim, asserting ownership supported by a deed of sale. Agoot posted an indemnity bond, and De Guzman proceeded with the auction sale. The Ongs then filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Agoot and De Guzman, as it was discovered Chua Po had died earlier and the truck was registered to Susan Tan Ong.
The trial court ruled for the Ongs, holding execution could only issue against a party to the suit, and the Ongs were not parties to Agoot’s case against Chua Po. The Court of Appeals affirmed, additionally noting the judgment against the deceased Chua Po was void. Agoot’s petition was denied by the Supreme Court, leaving De Guzman’s petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Sheriff Armando De Guzman is personally liable for damages for implementing the writ of execution against the truck despite a third-party claim.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision holding De Guzman liable. The legal logic is anchored on the proper procedure for handling third-party claims under the Rules of Court. A sheriff’s duty upon receiving a third-party claim is to notify the judgment creditor, who must then post an indemnity bond if he wishes the execution to proceed. The sheriff is not required to adjudicate the claim’s merits; his role is ministerial. The indemnity bond is precisely intended to protect the sheriff from personal liability, shifting the risk to the judgment creditor.
In this case, De Guzman complied strictly with this procedure: he notified Agoot of Tan Ong’s claim, Agoot filed the required indemnity bond, and only then did De Guzman proceed with the levy and sale. Consequently, De Guzman acted in good faith and in accordance with the rules. Any damages proven by the lawful owner, Susan Tan Ong, should be claimed against the indemnity bond posted by Agoot, not from De Guzman personally. The sheriff is not liable as he performed his official duty following the prescribed legal steps.