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

Fineza versus Anacleto

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed directly with the Supreme Court by the spouses Teofilo Fineza and Valentina Fineza against Elias Anacleto, the deputy provincial sheriff of the Regional Trial Court at Iligan City. The complainants charge the respondent with harassment and dereliction of duty, arising from his acts in enforcing a judgment for attorney's fees. The case matters to a reviewee because it shows how the Court weighs a sheriff's conduct in execution against the conduct of the very parties who complain, and why an administrative charge utterly lacking in merit is dismissed even where the sheriff's steps caused the complainants embarrassment.

Procedural History

The case began as an administrative complaint filed directly with the Supreme Court, not as an ordinary civil action. There were no proceedings in a trial court or in the Court of Appeals on the administrative charge itself. The only prior litigation was the civil case in the defunct Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, where the Finezas prevailed, but on appeal the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and ordered the Finezas, among other things, to pay the opposing parties attorney's fees. That appellate decision was remanded to the lower court for execution, and it was in the course of that execution that the respondent acted. The administrative complaint then reached the Supreme Court as an original action, and the Court resolved it in a decision promulgated in January 1986.

Facts

In the civil case, the Finezas won before the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and ordered them, among other things, to pay the opposing parties attorney's fees in the amount of 3,000 pesos. When the appellate decision was remanded to the lower court for execution, the respondent sheriff wrote the complainants a letter asking them to settle the payment or make some 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 to satisfy the obligation.

On April 12, 1985, the complainants deposited 3,015 pesos with the Regional Trial Court at Iligan City in payment of the attorney's fees adjudged against them. Despite that payment, the property was advertised for sale at public auction in the Lanao Mail in its issues of April 22, April 29, and May 6, 1985. The complainants claimed that publishing the sale despite payment was harassment that embarrassed, humiliated, and destroyed their good name.

The respondent answered that he learned of the deposit only on April 24, 1985, when Valentina Fineza appeared at his office, very angry that the notice of sheriff's sale was still appearing in the Lanao Mail despite payment. On that same day he wrote a letter to the publisher of the Lanao Mail, which he handed to Mrs. Fineza for delivery, requesting that the publication of the notice be stopped since the judgment had already been paid on the twelfth. The publication was not discontinued because, according to the respondent, Mrs. Fineza did not deliver the letter, a claim confirmed by a stenographic reporter of the Regional Trial Court at Iligan City. The Court also noted that Teofilo Fineza was a government auditor whose office stood barely about ten meters away from the Office of the Clerk of Court, so it would have been a simple matter for him to inform the respondent of the deposit, but he did not.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent sheriff is guilty of harassment and dereliction of duty in causing the publication of the notice of sheriff's sale despite the payment already made by the complainants.
• Whether or not the complainants' own conduct excuses or negates any administrative liability on the part of the respondent.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote or construe any statutory or constitutional provision; it resolves the administrative charge on the facts and on the conduct of the parties. No provision is therefore quoted here.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court dismissed the charge for utterly lacking in merit. The respondent had given the complainants ample time to pay the fees adjudged, and he moved to stop the publication as soon as he learned of the deposit. The publication continued only because the letter he entrusted to Mrs. Fineza was never delivered.

On the second issue, the Court laid the failure at the complainants' door. Teofilo Fineza, a government auditor holding office barely about ten meters away from the Office of the Clerk of Court, could simply have informed the respondent of the deposit made on April 12, 1985, but he did not. And when the respondent wrote to the publisher to discontinue the publication, Mrs. Fineza did not deliver the letter, later saying: "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?" On these facts, no harassment or dereliction of duty could be attributed to the respondent.

Doctrine

A sheriff is not administratively liable for harassment or dereliction of duty where he acted within his ministerial duty to execute a final judgment, gave the judgment debtors ample time to pay, and took prompt steps to halt the execution sale upon learning of payment. A party who silently withholds knowledge of payment from the executing officer, and who refuses to deliver the officer's letter seeking to stop the publication, cannot charge that officer with harassment. Administrative liability requires a clear showing of misconduct; where the charge is utterly lacking in merit, it must be dismissed.

Disposition

The administrative case was dismissed for lack of merit, and the respondent sheriff was exonerated.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the charge was dismissed for utterly lacking in merit because the complainants themselves withheld the fact of payment and failed to deliver the sheriff's letter stopping the publication. Examiners use this case to test whether a sheriff may be held administratively liable for enforcing a valid judgment when the judgment debtors' own inaction caused the very embarrassment they complain of.