Policarpio v. Fajardo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Lumen Policarpio filed an administrative complaint against Ely B. Fajardo, Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, for grave misconduct and abuse of authority. The complaint stemmed from Fajardo's appointment as Special Sheriff to execute a Writ of Execution in Civil Case No. 202468, where Atty. Policarpio was obligated to pay P5,927.70 to Socio-Economic Corporation. On February 7, 1973, Fajardo, accompanied by police officers and others, entered Policarpio's Draperies and Textile Store and confiscated numerous rolls and bundles of drapery and curtain materials, as well as floor mats. The store belonged to Leonila Policarpio, Atty. Policarpio's sister, and was managed by her. During the execution, Atty. Policarpio and Leonila were absent. Fajardo proceeded with the seizure despite objections from Atty. Policarpio's secretary, Victoria Loyola, who repeatedly stated that the store and its contents belonged to Leonila and not to the judgment debtor, Atty. Policarpio. The confiscated items were deposited at the bodega of Socio-Economic Corporation. Atty. Policarpio claimed the seized articles were worth P800,000.00, far exceeding the judgment debt. Procedural History: The investigation was conducted by Judge Carolina Griño-Aquino. The respondent sheriff denied the allegations, claiming he acted in accordance with law. Judge Griño-Aquino submitted a report finding respondent guilty of gross misconduct and grave abuse of authority. The Supreme Court, after considering the report and evidence, found the respondent guilty and recommended his dismissal. The Court agreed with the investigator's findings that the levy was improvident, reckless, malicious, hasty, oppressive, excessive, and an abusive enforcement of the writ. Fajardo's delivery of the goods to the judgment creditor's president instead of a sheriff's bodega was also deemed irregular and improper. The Court ordered the immediate dismissal of respondent Ely Fajardo from the service with forfeiture of all benefits. The Solicitor General was directed to investigate the participation of the lawyers who accompanied the sheriff. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed by Atty. Lumen Policarpio against Deputy Sheriff Ely B. Fajardo for grave misconduct and abuse of authority.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Ely B. Fajardo was guilty of grave misconduct and abuse of authority in the enforcement of the writ of execution. Whether the appointment of respondent as a special sheriff by an inferior court was proper. Whether the levy on the contents of Leonila Policarpio's store was justified and conducted in accordance with law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Ely B. Fajardo guilty of gross misconduct and grave abuse of authority and ordered his immediate dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of respondent Deputy Sheriff Ely B. Fajardo for grave misconduct and abuse of authority: The Court found respondent guilty. His actions demonstrated gross inefficiency, grave abuse of authority, and total disregard for fairness and elementary rules governing the implementation of judicial processes. He insisted on proceeding with the levy despite being informed that the store did not belong to the judgment debtor, Atty. Lumen Policarpio. The evidence that the store belonged to Leonila Policarpio was conclusive, yet Fajardo did not wait for either Leonila or Atty. Policarpio, despite being informed of their whereabouts and having the opportunity to verify the ownership. His conduct was inexcusable, especially since there was no real urgency to make the levy at that moment. The Court emphasized that the least he should have done was to wait for the owner or the judgment debtor, who was a practicing lawyer. The manner in which the levy was conducted left no room for doubt about his bad faith. He made no effort to limit the goods to be levied to the amount called for in the writ, assuming he could even make the levy without a formal demand for payment, which he could not have done as he refused to wait for Atty. Policarpio. The Court found it unbelievable that Fajardo was devoid of any idea of the value of the merchandise, given the sheer volume of goods seized. The fact that he readily left behind a refrigerator and sewing machines when they did not fit in the conveyances further suggested an intention to take as much as possible. The Court agreed that the levy was improvident, reckless, malicious, hasty, oppressive, excessive, and an abusive enforcement of the writ of execution. On the propriety of the appointment of respondent as a special sheriff: The Court reiterated its admonition that the general practice of lower courts appointing 'special sheriffs' is unauthorized by law, except in specific instances such as when the sheriff is a party to the action, is otherwise incompetent, or the office of sheriff is vacant. This practice is abhorred by the Court, as enunciated in previous cases. While Fajardo was appointed as a special sheriff, the Court's focus was on his conduct during the execution, which was found to be gravely abusive and misconductous, irrespective of the propriety of his appointment. On whether the levy on the contents of Leonila Policarpio's store was justified and conducted in accordance with law: The levy was found to be unjustified and not conducted in accordance with law. Leonila Policarpio was not a party to Civil Case No. 202468, yet her store's contents were levied upon. Fajardo was repeatedly informed that the store belonged to Leonila and not to the judgment debtor. His failure to verify this information and his hasty seizure of the entire inventory, which was valued far in excess of the judgment debt, constituted an abusive enforcement of the writ. Furthermore, Fajardo's delivery of the seized goods to William Li Yao, the president of the Socio-Economic Financing Corporation, instead of keeping them in the sheriff's bodega, was irregular and improper. This demonstrated his complete subordination to Li Yao and his behavior as a minion rather than an officer of the court. The Court also noted the significant discrepancy in the yardage of materials recovered compared to what was seized, indicating potential pilferage while the goods were in the custody of Fajardo and Li Yao. The inaccurate receipt issued by Fajardo, lacking specific yardage, contributed to this ambiguity and potential for fraud.
Main Doctrine
A deputy sheriff who acts with gross inefficiency, grave abuse of authority, and total disregard for the requirements of fairness and elementary rules governing the implementation of judicial processes, particularly in levying upon property not belonging to the judgment debtor and in conducting the levy in an oppressive and excessive manner, is unfit to continue in service and warrants dismissal.