G.R. No. L-10919; February 28, 1958
LORETO LORCA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE S. DINEROS, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Pursuant to a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 1062 (“Rosario Suero vs. Jose Morata”), Deputy Sheriff Jose S. Dineros, acting in the name of the Provincial Sheriff, sold property at public auction, disregarding a third-party claim filed by Loreto Lorca asserting ownership over said property. Lorca filed an action for damages against Deputy Sheriff Dineros. In his answer, Dineros denied liability, stating he acted for and on behalf of the Provincial Sheriff, Cipriano Cabaluna. The trial court dismissed the action on the ground that the Sheriff, not the deputy, was responsible. The dismissal resulted from a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

ISSUE

Whether Deputy Sheriff Jose S. Dineros is personally liable for damages resulting from the auction sale conducted in his capacity as deputy, or whether liability properly rests with the Provincial Sheriff.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The deputy sheriff is not personally liable under the circumstances. The certificate of sale showed Dineros acted at all times in the name of the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo, and there were no allegations of active misfeasance or that he exceeded the limits of his agency. The Sheriff is liable to third persons for the acts of his deputy, just as a principal is responsible for the acts of an agent, which is why the Sheriff is required to post a bond for the benefit of whom it may concern. The provisions of Section 334 of the Revised Administrative Code and Section 15, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, cited by appellant, apply where the deputy acts in his own name, is guilty of active malfeasance, or possibly exceeds his agency. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to include or substitute the Sheriff as party defendant under Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court. The action was properly dismissed for suing the agent instead of the principal.