G.R. No. 25445, November 12, 1926
M. SINGH, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN SULSE, ET AL., defendants. BERNARDO ARTECHE, appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiff M. Singh obtained a judgment against Santa Singh. A writ of execution was issued and sent to the Provincial Sheriff of Samar, Juan Sulse. The writ was forwarded to Deputy Sheriff Francisco Colinares in Basey, who attached Santa Singh’s property (lumber and carabaos). Third parties filed claims over the attached property. Colinares required Singh to post indemnity bonds, which Singh did on multiple occasions, with Colinares initially approving them. However, Colinares later disapproved the bonds, citing withdrawal of sureties or their insolvency. Deputy Sheriff Bernardo Arteche, who was involved in transmitting the bonds, assured Singh that the matter was settled and advised him to return to Manila. Subsequently, Singh received a telegram stating the execution was not levied because sureties had withdrawn or were insolvent. The attached property was released, and the execution was not enforced. Singh sued the sheriffs (Sulse, Colinares, and Arteche) for damages, alleging their wrongful acts and conspiracy led to the release of the property and his inability to collect the judgment debt. The trial court found the sheriffs liable and ordered them to pay damages jointly and severally. Arteche appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether Deputy Sheriff Bernardo Arteche is personally liable for damages arising from the failure to enforce the writ of execution.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding Arteche liable and in awarding damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision, holding Arteche liable.

1. On Arteche’s Personal Liability: The Court rejected Arteche’s defense that as a mere deputy sheriff, only the provincial sheriff (Sulse) was responsible. While a sheriff is generally liable for the official defaults of his deputies, a deputy sheriff can be held personally liable for his own active malfeasance or wrongful acts. Here, Arteche’s actions and omissions contributed to the non-enforcement of the writ. His assurance to Singh that the matter was settled, leading Singh to leave Samar, was part of the conduct that prejudiced the judgment creditor. Therefore, Arteche was liable as a wrongdoer, not merely in his official capacity.

2. On the Findings and Award of Damages: The Court found the trial court’s factual conclusionsincluding the finding of conspiracy among the sheriffs and Santa Singh, and the computation of damagesto be supported by the evidence. The damages awarded (including the uncollected judgment debt, sheriff’s fees, transportation costs, bond premiums, attorney’s fees, and telegram expenses) were justified as direct consequences of the sheriffs’ wrongful acts.

DOCTRINE:
A deputy sheriff may be held personally liable for damages resulting from his own active malfeasance, negligence, or wrongful acts in the performance of his duties, even though the sheriff is generally liable for the deputy’s official defaults. The action against the deputy in such a case is against him as a tortfeasor or wrongdoer.