PABLO L. BAROLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. VICTORIANO L. ABOGATAL, DEPUTY SHERIFF, CFI, MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL, OZAMIZ CITY BRANCH II, RESPONDENT.

Barola versus Abogatal

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by Pablo L. Barola against Victoriano L. Abogatal, a deputy sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, Ozamiz City Branch II. Barola charged the sheriff with dereliction of duty for failing to enforce a writ of execution that would have satisfied a final judgment in his favor. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct owed by a sheriff to a winning litigant: a writ of execution is not a suggestion to be negotiated but a command to be carried out, and the sheriff who sits on it, or who fails to levy and sell leviable property, answers administratively.

Procedural History

The case began as an administrative complaint filed directly with the Supreme Court, after Barola had denounced the sheriff to the President of the Philippines and to the Secretary of Justice. The complaint was supported by the affidavits of Jesus Barola and Dimas Apique, and a newsman, Emil J. Sagrado, manifested his intention to testify for the complainant. The sheriff filed his comment, explaining that he could not make a return of the writ because Barola refused to give it back to him. The matter was referred to Executive Judge Melecio Genato for investigation, report and recommendation. The Court Administrator and his deputy, Judge Leo D. MediaIdea, found the sheriff guilty of dereliction of duty, and the Supreme Court, in this decision, adopted that finding.

Facts

In a civil case before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, Judge Melecio Genato rendered judgment on November 17, 1977, ordering the defendant, Serapion Gomez, to pay 15,340 pesos as damages for the death of Felipa Lambayong, who was Barola's mother. On January 15, 1978, the writ of execution to enforce that final judgment was placed in the hands of Deputy Sheriff Abogatal.

According to Barola and his witnesses, the sheriff listed the personal properties of Gomez that could be levied upon, namely a refrigerator, two electric fans or blowers, a Singer sewing machine and a stereo phonograph. He even told Gomez not to remove those properties and to post a bond. Yet he did not proceed with their auction sale, allegedly because he received a folded envelope from the judgment debtor. On January 16, 1978, Barola, the sheriff, Jesus Barola and Dimas Apique traveled to Iligan City, where Gomez lived. The next morning, while Barola and Apique were at the police headquarters requesting a police escort, the sheriff went out to serve the writ. Upon returning, he assured Barola that the refrigerator and electric fans could be seized in the afternoon and showed him the list of properties. After lunch, however, the sheriff was gone. Barola learned that the sheriff had talked with Gomez, who handed him a small folded paper bag. When the sheriff came back he was angry, told Barola to go home because Gomez was poor and had no money to satisfy the judgment, and hurried away, ignoring the list of properties to be seized. The following morning he scolded Barola and told him not to come to the court.

For his part, the sheriff testified that he failed to transport the appliances because Barola had no money to pay for the freight, that the appliances had been stored at the police headquarters in Iligan City and were no longer salable, and he denied receiving an envelope from Gomez. It was undisputed that the judgment against Gomez had never been satisfied. The sheriff received the writ on January 15, 1978, but made his return only on May 22, 1978.

Issues

• Whether or not Deputy Sheriff Abogatal is guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to levy upon the leviable personal properties of the judgment debtor and to sell them at public auction.
• Whether or not Deputy Sheriff Abogatal is guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to make a timely return of the writ of execution.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which the decision quotes, provides:

Sec. 11, Rule 39, Rules of Court.

The Court cites this provision to fix the period within which a sheriff must return the writ, and it bears on the case because the sheriff received the writ on January 15, 1978 but returned it only on May 22, 1978, well beyond the period allowed. The decision states the substance of the rule in these words:

He also failed to return the writ of execution "not less than ten (10) nor more than sixty (60) days after its receipt."

This is the standard against which the sheriff's delay is measured, and it is the basis of the second ground of liability.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the sheriff is guilty of dereliction of duty for not enforcing the writ of execution. He failed to levy on the refrigerator and the electric fans belonging to the judgment debtor and to sell them at public auction. The Court adopted the finding of the Court Administrator and his deputy, Judge Leo D. MediaIdea, on this point.

On the second issue, the Court held that the sheriff likewise failed to return the writ within the period prescribed by Section 11 of Rule 39. He received the writ on January 15, 1978 but made his return only on May 22, 1978. His excuse, that the writ was in the possession of Barola, was rejected as not meritorious; the Court said it only showed his carelessness in handling the writ.

Doctrine

A sheriff is bound to enforce a writ of execution with diligence: he must levy upon the leviable personal property of the judgment debtor and sell it at public auction, and he must return the writ within the period fixed by Section 11 of Rule 39, that is, not less than ten nor more than sixty days after its receipt. Failure to levy and sell, and failure to make a timely return, constitute dereliction of duty for which the sheriff is administratively liable. The excuse that the writ was left in the hands of the complainant does not exonerate the sheriff; it only proves his carelessness in handling the writ. A judgment creditor is entitled to the satisfaction of a final judgment, and the sheriff may not defeat that right by inaction.

Disposition

The Court found Deputy Sheriff Abogatal guilty of dereliction of duty and imposed upon him a fine equivalent to his one month's salary, with a warning that a repetition of the infraction will be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that a sheriff who fails to levy on leviable property and to return the writ within the period fixed by Section 11 of Rule 39 is guilty of dereliction of duty. Examiners use this case in administrative law and in remedial law on execution, testing the sheriff's ministerial duty to enforce a writ and the consequences of delay in making a return.