A.M. No. R-181-P. July 31, 1987
ADELIO C. CRUZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. QUITERIO L. DALISAY, DEPUTY SHERIFF, RTC, MANILA, RESPONDENT.
FERNAN, J.:
In a sworn complaint
dated July 23, 1984, Adelio C. Cruz charged Quiterio L. Dalisay, Senior Deputy
Sheriff of Manila, with “malfeasance in office, corrupt practices and
serious irregularities” allegedly committed as follows:
1. Respondent sheriff attached and/or levied the money belonging
to complainant Cruz when he was not himself the judgment debtor in the final
judgment of NLRC NCR Case No. 8-12389-91 sought to be enforced but rather the
company known as “Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc.”, a duly
registered corporation; and,
2. Respondent likewise caused the service of the alias writ of
execution upon complainant who is a resident of Pasay City, despite knowledge
that his territorial jurisdiction covers Manila only and does not extend to
Pasay City.
In his Comments, respondent Dalisay explained that when he
garnished complainant’s cash deposit at the Philtrust bank, he was merely performing
a ministerial duty. While it is true
that said writ was addressed to Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc., yet it is
also a fact that complainant had executed an affidavit before the Pasay City
assistant fiscal stating that he is the owner/president of said corporation
and, because of that declaration, the counsel for the plaintiff in the labor
case advised him to serve notice of garnishment on the Philtrust bank.
On November 12, 1984, this case was referred to the Executive
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila for investigation, report and
recommendation.
Prior to the termination
of the proceedings, however, complainant executed an affidavit of desistance
stating that he is no longer interested in prosecuting the case against
respondent Dalisay and that it was just a “misunderstanding” between
them. Upon respondent’s motion, the Executive
Judge issued an order dated May 29, 1986 recommending the dismissal of the
case.
It has been held that the desistance of complainant does not
preclude the taking of disciplinary action against respondent. Neither does it dissuade the Court from
imposing the appropriate corrective sanction.
One who holds a public position, especially an office directly connected
with the administration of justice and the execution of judgments, must at all
times be free from the appearance of impropriety.[1]
We hold that respondent’s actuation in enforcing a judgment
against complainant who is not the judgment debtor in the case calls for
disciplinary action. Considering the
ministerial nature of his duty in enforcing writs of execution, what is incumbent
upon him is to ensure that only that portion of a decision ordained or decreed
in the dispositive part should be the subject of execution.[2] No more, no less. That the title of the case specifically names complainant as one of the
respondents is of no moment as execution must conform to that directed in the
dispositive portion and not in the title of the case.
The tenor of the NLRC judgment and the implementing writ is clear
enough. It directed Qualitrans Limousine
Service, Inc. to reinstate the discharged employees and pay them full
backwages. Respondent, however, chose to
“pierce the veil of corporate entity” usurping a power belonging to
the court and assumed improvidently that since the complainant is the
owner/president of Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc., they are one and the
same. It is a well-settled doctrine both
in law and in equity that as a legal entity, a corporation has a personality
distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members. The mere fact that one is president of a
corporation does not render the property he owns or possesses the property of
the corporation, since the president, as individual, and the corporation are
separate entities.[3]
Anent the charge that respondent exceeded his territorial
jurisdiction, suffice it to say that the writ of execution sought to be implemented
was dated July 9, 1984, or prior to the issuance of Administrative
Circular No. 12 which restrains a sheriff from enforcing a court writ outside
his territorial jurisdiction without first notifying in writing and seeking the
assistance of the sheriff of the place where execution shall take place.
Accordingly, we find Respondent Deputy Sheriff Quiterio L.
Dalisay NEGLIGENT in the
enforcement of the writ of execution in NLRC NCR Case No. 8-12389-91, and a
fine equivalent to three [3] months salary is hereby imposed with a stern
warning that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future will
merit a heavier penalty. Let a copy of
this Resolution be filed in the personal record of the respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin,
and Cortes, JJ., concur.
[1]
Antonio vs. Diaz, Adm. Matter No. P-1568, December 28, 1979, 94 SCRA
890, 893
[2]
Pelejo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 60800, August 31, 1982, 116 SCRA
406
[3]
Sulo ng Bayan, Inc. vs. Araneta, Inc., No. L-31061, August 17, 1976, 72
SCRA 347, 354-355