GR L 67970; (January, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-67970 January 15, 1988
JOSE ABROGAR and JUANA DESEAR, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, SOCORRO DESEAR and BRIGIDA DESEAR, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Jose Abrogar and Juana Desear were judgment creditors in a civil case where private respondents Socorro and Brigida Desear were ordered to pay P2,553.00. For failure to satisfy this final judgment, the Provincial Sheriff levied on two parcels of land owned by the respondents, with a combined market value of P75,000.00, and scheduled a public auction for March 27, 1971, after proper notice and publication. One day before the sale, upon motion of respondent Socorro Desear, the trial court issued an order postponing the auction on the condition that the movant pay the publication fees. The movant failed to pay this condition. The Sheriff did not proceed with the sale on March 27, 1971, but instead conducted the auction nearly four months later, on July 16, 1971, without any new notice or publication. The properties were sold for only the judgment debt of P2,553.00.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the sheriff’s sale on July 16, 1971, was valid despite the lack of new notice and publication; and (2) whether the award of attorney’s fees to the private respondents was proper.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the nullity of the sheriff’s sale but reversed the award of attorney’s fees. On the first issue, the Court held the July 16, 1971 auction was null and void. The original sale set for March 27, 1971, complied with all legal requirements. The trial court’s conditional order of postponement did not take effect because the suspensive condition—payment of publication fees by the movant—was not fulfilled. Consequently, there was no valid postponement. Under Section 24, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, a sheriff may adjourn a sale from day to day, but adjournment to a different date requires the written consent of both the debtor and creditor. No such written agreement existed here. Therefore, the sheriff was obligated to proceed on March 27, 1971. His failure to do so and his conduct of a sale months later without the mandated notice and publication rendered the sale void for violating the fundamental requirements of due process in execution sales.
On the second issue, the Court found the award of P2,000.00 in attorney’s fees to be baseless. The claim for attorney’s fees was neither pleaded in the complaint nor proven during trial. The Court emphasized that attorney’s fees are not awarded as a matter of right but as an exception under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, requiring factual, legal, and equitable justification explicitly stated in the decision’s body. Since no such justification was demonstrated, the award constituted a reversible error. The dispositive portion of the appellate court’s decision was thus modified by deleting the award of attorney’s fees.