TEOFILO FINEZA AND VALENTINA FINEZA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ELIAS ANACLETO, DEPUTY PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ILIGAN CITY, RESPONDENT.

The spouses Teofilo and Valentina Fineza filed the
instant case against Elias Anacleo, deputy provincial
sheriff of the Regional Trial Court at Iligan City.  They alleged harassment and dereliction of
duty.

The record shows that in Civil Case No. V-70 of the de­funct
Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, the Finezas prevailed but upon appeal to the then Court of
Appeals the de­cision was reversed and the Finezas
were ordered, inter alia, to pay the
opposing parties attorney’s fees in the amount of P3,000.
00.

When the appellate court’s decision was remanded to the lower
court for execution of the judgment, the respondent addressed a letter to the
complainants to “settle” the payment of the attorney’s fees or
“make some sort of arrangement” not later than April 15, 1985
otherwise their residential lot at Pala-o, Iligan City, would be sold at public auction on May 21,
1985 in order to satisfy the obligation.

On April 12, 1985
the complainants deposited P3,015.00 with the Regional
Trial Court at Iligan
City under O.R. No. 2919216 in
payment of the attorney’s fees adjudged against them.  Despite the payment, the property of the Finezas was advertised for sale at public auction in the Lanao Mail issues of April 22, April 29, and May 6, 1985.  The complainants now claim that the
publication of the sale in the Lanao Mail
and in other public places despite the payment already made was an act of
harassment which embarrassed, humiliated and destroyed their good name.

In his defense the respondent states that it was only on April
24, 1985 that he came to know that the complainants had made the deposit
“when Mrs. Valentina Fineza,
one of the complainants herein appeared at the respondent’s office and was very
angry because, as according to her, why was the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale of
their property still appeared in the LANAO MAIL, one of the City’s local
newspaper, when they already paid the amount?” He also states that on the
same day he wrote a letter to the publisher of the Lanao
Mail which was handed to Mrs. Fineza for delivery.

The letter was worded thus:

“May I request that the publication of the legal Notice in re:
Fineza vs. Badelles be
stopped con­sidering that the plaintiff Fineza have
already paid the judgment on the 12th yet so that this Notice could not have
been published.

“The bearer, Mrs. Fineza, will
arrange with you as to the cost the one issue or I will just arrange with our
office that you will be compensated to the notice being stopped or suspended. “

Notwithstanding the letter, the publication of the sale in the Lanao Mail was not discontinued because,
according to the res­pondent, Mrs. Fineza did not
deliver the letter and his claim is confirmed by Mrs. Natividad
I. Jove, a stenographic reporter of the Regional Trial Court in Iligan City.

We dismiss the charge for utterly lacking in merit.

It appears that Mr. Teofilo Fineza is a government auditor who holds office
“barely about 10 meters away from the Office of the Clerk of Court.”
It would have been a simple matter for him to have informed the respondent who
had given the complainants ample time to pay the fees adjudged about the
deposit which he had made on April 12,
1985.  But he did not.  And when the respondent wrote a letter to the
publisher of the Lanao Mail to discontinue
the publication of the notice of sale, Mrs. Fineza
did not deliver the letter alleging later: “Why should I be the one to
stop the publication when I was not the one who have it published? Why should
we be the one to pay the cost of publication when we were not the one who have it published?”

WHEREFORE, the instant administrative case is dismissed
for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Jr., (Chairman), Escolin, Cuevas, and
Alampay, JJ. concur.