LOURDES PADOLINA, COMPLAINANT, VS. RUBEN L. HENSON DEPUTY SHERIFF, RESPONDENT.

A sworn complaint was filed on August 1, 1988 by Lourdes Padolina in the Regional Trial Court, Branch LXI, Angeles
City, charging Deputy Sheriff Ruben L. Henson of the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Branch 2, Angeles City, with malfeasance in the conduct of the auction
sale of complainant’s electronic appliances worth P30,000 to satisfy a judgment
debt of P2,538, plus legal interest, in favor of the Advent Educational System,
Inc., plaintiff in a collection suit (Civil Case No. 87-140) against Padolina.

Executive Judge Ramon C. Tuason of the
said Regional Trial Court promptly endorsed the complaint to the Court Administrator of this Court for
appropriate action.

The facts of this case, as recited in a memorandum prepared by
Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez, and concurred in by then Court
Administrator Maximo A. Maceren,
are as follows:

On May 25, 1988,
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Angeles
City, issued a Writ of Execution for the
satisfaction of a judgment for P2,538 rendered by it
against defendant Lourdes Padolina in Civil Case No. 87-140, entitled,
“Advent Educational System, Inc. vs. Lourdes Padolina.”
Respondent Deputy Sheriff implemented the writ on June 9, 1988 by seizing the following personal properties
of complainant:

1. 
One (1) unit Sony colored T.V. Model KV-1546R, 15 inches, valued at P10,000;

2. 
One (1) unit Teac Stereo valued at P5,000;

3. 
One (1) unit Fisher Component, Fisher AM/FM Receiver valued at P5,000; and

4. 
One (1) unit Casio Electronic Organ valued at P10,000.

On June 10, 1988,
a Notice of sheriff’s Sale was
posted by the respondent in three (3) unspecified conspicuous places announcing
that the sale would take place at 2:00 P.M. on June 20, 1988 in his office in the Municipal Trial Court,
Branch II, Angeles City.

In his Comment,
respondent sheriff admitted that three (3) days before the scheduled sale, the
complainant paid P2,300 through the Clerk of Court in
partial satisfaction of the judgment against her.  According to the complainant, she and the
respondent had an understanding (which respondent denied), that the sale would
not proceed.  In spite of it, respondent
Henson conducted the auction sale on June 20, 1988, as scheduled, and sold for
P3,000 to a certain Edgardo Balingit,
as the lone bidder, the two (2) most expensive appliances which he had seized from the complainant, namely:  (a) the colored Sony TV set worth P10,000,
and (b) the Casio Electronic Organ also valued at P10,000, or P20,000 worth of
appliances, to satisfy the balance of P238 plus interest on the judgment
debt.  Respondent alleged that the levied
properties were defective and not worth more than the judgment debt.

After carefully
considering the complaint and the comment thereon, We are persuaded that
respondent sheriff committed serious misconduct in proceeding with the auction
sale, and in selling the complainant’s TV set and the electronic organ for a
pittance (only P3,000) when their declared value was
P20,000.  His misfeasance becomes more
glaring when we consider the fact that the unpaid balance of the judgment was
only P238 plus
legal interest, because with Henson’s knowledge, the complainant had
already deposited P2,300
with the Clerk of Court, three
days before the auction sale.  The
deposit was properly made with the Clerk of Court who was the ex oficio sheriff
and Henson’s immediate superior. 
Section 11 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that the writ of
execution shall be returnable either to the clerk, or judge, of the
court issuing it.

Respondent’s allegation,
that he proceeded with the sale because the complainant’s P2,300-deposit
was insufficient to satisfy the judgment, has no merit, for he agreed with the
complainant that the sale would not go on.  We
believe that if he did not agree to suspend the sale, the complainant would
have attended it to pay the small balance of P238 plus legal interest she still
owed on the judgment.  We can perceive no other reason for her paying a substantial portion of
the judgment three days before the auction, than her desire to stop the sale of
her valuable appliances.

In any event, the meager
balance of her debt could have been satisfied by the sale of any of the two
cheaper items in the list of levied appliances. 
But respondent picked not only one, but two, and not the cheaper, but
the more expensive, appliances in the list. 
Obviously, he either wanted to favor the supposed “lone
bidder” or he may have coveted the complainant’s expensive Sony TV set and
Casio electronic organ, and used Balingit so he could
acquire them himself for a song. 
Contrary to respondent’s allegation, the Sony colored TV set was not
described as “defective” in his list of levied properties, and,
although the Casio electronic organ was supposedly “defective,” there
is no suggestion in the
respondent’s Comment that it was inoperational.

Section 15, Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court provides that “when there is more property of the
judgment debtor than is sufficient to satisfy the judgment and accruing costs, within
the view of the officer, he must levy only on such part of the property as is
amply sufficient to satisfy the judgment and costs.” In this case,
respondent Deputy Sheriff not only made an excessive levy but also sold
property of the judgment debtor in excess of the amount needed to satisfy the
almost insignificant balance of her judgment debt.  We see bad faith and evident intent to
defraud the judgment debtor in respondent’s implementation of the writ of
execution against the complainant.  We,
therefore, find him guilty of serious misconduct in the discharge of his office
(R.M. Salazar, Jr. Construction, Inc. vs. Espinelli,
110 SCRA 32).  In Policarpio vs. Fajardo, Adm.
Matter No. P-312, 78 SCRA 210, a sheriff who made an excessive levy was
found guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed from the service by this Court.

WHEREFORE,
respondent Deputy Sheriff Ruben L. Henson is found guilty of grave misconduct
in the discharge of his office and is hereby dismissed from the service with
forfeiture of retirement benefits, except the value of his accrued leaves, and
with prejudice to future reinstatement in the Government service.  Let a copy of this decision be furnished the
Ombudsman for appropriate action.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento,
Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.