LORETO LORCA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. JOSE S. DINEROS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This action for damages against Deputy Sheriff Jose S. Dineros was dismissed
by Hon. Pantaleon Pelayo, Judge of Iloilo, on the ground that it is the Sheriff
who is responsible, if at all-not this deputy.

Such decision resulted from a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The facts
are short and simple:

Pursuant to a writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 1062 entitled
“Rosario Suero v. Jose Morata” Jose S, Dineros as Deputy Sheriff and in the name
of. the Sheriff sold at public auction to Jose Bermejo and Rosario Suero the
property attached therein, disregarding the third-party claim of Loreto Lorca
(herein Plaintiff) who asserted ownership over said property. This suit for
damages is the result of said auction sale. Defendant, in his answer, denied
liability, pointing out that he had merely acted for and on behalf of Provincial
Sheriff, Cipriano Cabaluna.

The appellant insists here that Dineros was responsible in view of sec. 334
of the Revised Administrative Code and sec. 15, Rule 39, Rules of Court, which
provides as follows:

“SEC. 334-Right of Bonded Officer to Require Bond from Deputy or assistant.-A
sheriff or other accountable official may require any of his deputies or
assistants, not bonded in the fidelity fund, to give an adequate personal bond
as security against loss by reason of any wrongdoing on the part of such deputy
or assistant. The taking of such security shall in no wise impair the
independent civil liability of any of the parties.”

“* * * and in case the sheriff or attaching officer is sued for damages as a
result of the attachment * * *.”

In the light of section 330 of the Administrative Code we think the above
provisions apply where the deputy acts in his own name or is guilty of active
malfeasance^[1] or possibly where he exceeds
the limits of his agency. In this case it is clear from the certificate of sale
attached to the complaint as Annex C that Dineros acted all the time in the name
of the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo; and no allegations of
misfeasance are made. The Sheriff is liable to third persons on the acts of his
deputy,^[2] in the same manner that the
principal is responsible for the acts of his agent. That is why he is required
to post a bond for “the benefit of whom it may concern,” (Section 330, Revised
Administrative Code) for instance the owners of property unlawfully sold by him
on execution.^[3]

The complaint should not have been dismissed, appellant argues, since the
court could have included the Sheriff as party defendant, in line with Rule 3,
section 11 of the Rules of Court. However, what should have been done was not
“inclusion” as plaintiff asked, nor “exclusion” under said section 11. It was
“substitution” of the deputy by the Sheriff. Anyway, the word “may” in said sec.
11 implies discretion of the court; and we are shown no reasons indicating
abuse thereof.

This is not the first time an action is dismissed for the reason that the
agent-instead of his principal-was made the party defendant. (See Macias &
Co. vs. Warner Barnes, 43 Phil., 155; Banque Generate Belge vs. Walter Bull
& Co., 84 Phil., 164, 47 Off. Gaz., 138.)

Judgment affirmed, with costs against appellant.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, J.J., concur.

---

^[1]Cf. Singh vs. Sulce, 49 Phil.,
563.
^[2]Basco vs. Gonzales, 59 Phil., 1,
6; Singh vs. Sulce, supra.
^[3]Walker
vs. McMicking, 14 Phil., 668; Osorio vs. Cortes, 24 Phil., 653; Basco vs.
Gonzales supra.