R.M. SALAZAR JR. CONSTRUCTION, INC., COMPLAINANT, VS. DEPUTY SHERIFF RODOLFO M. ESPINELI, RESPONDENT.

In a sworn-complaint filed on June 23, 1980, R. M. Salazar Jr. Construction, Inc.,
through counsel, charged Deputy Sheriff Rodolfo M. Espineli
of Quezon City
with grave abuse of authority for allegedly having levied on properties of a
value far in excess of the amount which appears in the writ of execution.

The complaint alleged that the complainant is a corporation duly
organized by virtue of the laws
of the Philippines, while the respondent, Rodolfo M. Espineli,
is a Deputy Sheriff of Quezon City assigned to the
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch III, Quezon City; that on August 31, 1977, a complaint for the
recovery of a sum of money was filed against R.M. Salazar Jr. Construction,
Inc., by one Antonio M. de Dios in the Court of First
Instance of Rizal at Quezon
City, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 23736 entitled “Antonio M. De Dios, etc., plaintiff vs. R.M. Salazar Jr. Construction,
Inc., defendant”; that on January 24, 1978, judgment was rendered in said
case ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the principal amount of
P52,000.00; that pursuant to an order dated July 11, 1978, a writ of execution
for the amount of the judgment was issued and the respondent, Deputy Sheriff Rodolfo
M. Espineli, was appointed as special sheriff to
enforce the writ of execution; that in enforcing the writ of execution, the
respondent levied on one (1) Komatsu bulldozer, one (1) Kimco
payloader and one (1) Toyota Hi-Lux
pick-up of the complainant then easily worth about P500,000.00, P175,000.00 and
P60,000.00, respectively; that the complainant was then engaged in prosecuting
government projects and the equipment levied upon were being used for that
purpose; that as a consequence, the construc­tion projects had to be stopped
and several workers entirely dependent upon the project were laid off; and that
the complainant denounced the levy made by the respondent, Deputy Sheirff, as malicious, patently excessive, confiscatory and
abusive.^[1]

In his comment, the respondent Deputy Sheriff explained that the
issue of the excessiveness of the levy he made had been raised by the
complainant in a Motion to Quash Levy which the Court of First Instance of Rizal, after due hearing, denied for lack of merit on June
26, 1980; and that since the respondent’s opposition to the motion to quash
levy squarely met the issue of excessive levy posed by the complainant, the
respondent adopted said opposition as part of this answer to the administrative
complaint.^[2]

Executive Judge Ernani Cruz Paño of the Court of First Instance of Quezon
City to whom this case was referred for investigation, submitted a report and
recommendation, the pertinent portion of which reads:

“From the evidence on record, it appears undisputed that on January
24, 1978 Antonio de Dios secured judgment against
R.M. Salazar Jr. Construction, complainant herein, for the payment of the following sums:

“1.  The amount of P25,833.33 representing the
unpaid purchase price of the motor vehi­cle subject of the case with interest
thereon at 14% per annum from July 21,
1977 until fully paid;

“2.  The amount of P5,129.59 representing the
unpaid spare parts;

“3.  The amount of P1,125.59 as additional charges
on Fuso Truck Tractor;

“4.  The amount of P6,072.72 as interest on overdue
account on the unit and spare parts as of July 20, 1977;

“5.  The sum equivalent to 33 1/3% of the amount of
P25,833.33 as liquidated damages; and P8,525.60;

“6.  The sum equivalent to 25% of the amount of
P25,833.33 as attorney’s fees, plus the costs of suit, P6,458.33.

“A writ of execution was issued on January 14, 1978 and levy was made on November 9, 1978 on a Komatsu
bulldozer, a payloader and a Toyota
pick up truck.  No evidence has been
submitted to establish the claim of Salazar Construction that the heavy
equipments levied upon by respondent had an actual value of P735,000.00.  On the other hand, Espineli
appears to have relied upon the valuation made by a collector and two mechanics
of De Dios which assessed the equipments at
P100,000.00.  The persons in charge of
the equipments did not object to the levy and removal of the equipments.  It was only on March 7, 1980 that complainant informed him that the
equipments were worth P800,000.00.  The
pro­perties were not sold at public auction be­cause first a third party claim
was filed and later Salazar filed a complaint for an­nulment of judgment in
Civil Case No. 26652.  Later this was
dismissed but some arrangements were made between De Dios
and Salazar.  The equipments were
eventually released to Salazar.”^[3]

The Investigating Judge recommended that the complaint be
dismissed on the ground that no evidence was introduced by complainant on the
supposed value of the equipments.

The Court Administrator disagreed with the Inves­tigating Judge
for the following reason:

“Any person with ordinary sense of values of equipments, and
it is hard to believe respondent was entirely devoid of experience to more or
less have ideas in this respect, could have known that one (1) Komatsu bull­dozer,
one (1) Kimco payloader and
one (1) Toyota Hi-Lux pick up were valued more than
P52,000.00.  Indeed, he must have known
he was taking more than what was needed. 
In Felicitas Salazar Sioco,
et al. versus Deme­trio S. Villaflor,
Deputy Sheriff of the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Davao
City, 81 SCRA 229, respondent was found guilty of having attached motor
vehicles worth much more than the claim of the plaintiff in the complaint.  The total claim of plaintiff in said case was
only about P28,000.00 and res­pondent attached 21 units of motor vehicles with
a total value of around P105,000.00.  The
Court found the Sheriff guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his office and was suspended for one (1) month
without pay, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will
be dealt with more severely.”^[4]

Even without the testimony of the complainant, it is clear that
the equipments that were levied upon were worth more than the amount of
P52,000.00, the claim sought to be satisfied.

After the first deliberation on this case, the voting ranged from
exoneration to dismissal of the res­pondent deputy sheriff.  Hence the Court set the case for a second
deliberation.

Mr. Justice Ramon C. Aquino maintained
his vote to dismiss the respondent on the ground that he is guilty of gross
misconduct when he made an excessive levy. 
Mr. Justice Claudio Teehankee, Mr. Justice
Felix V. Makasiar, and Mr. Justice Hermogenes Concepcion Jr.,
although originally voting to dismiss the respondent, changed their votes to
suspend the petitioner for six (6)
months from office only so that the required number of votes to release the
decision can be obtained.

Mr. Justice Pacifico P. de Castro maintained his vote to exonerate the
respondent.

WHEREFORE, the respondent Deputy Sheriff Rodolfo M. Espineli is found guilty of misconduct in the dis­charge of
his office and is hereby suspended from office for six (6) months, not to be
charged against his leave, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar
offense will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad
Santos, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

Aquino and
De Castro, JJ., dissent.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-4.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 13.

^[3]
Rollo, p. 81.

^[4]
Memorandum of Court Administrator to the Chief Justice, p. 3.

6 pt
6 pt
0
3