Aquino v. Aficial
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Andres M. Aquino charged respondent Deputy Sheriff Melecio N. Aficial with misconduct, inefficiency, incompetence, and conduct prejudicial to the service for failing to levy on the goods and chattels of judgment debtor Pancho M. Patungan during the implementation of a writ of execution in an ejectment case. The complainant alleged that the judgment debtor owned several personal properties, including a grinding machine, electric fan, refrigerator, gas range, and shoes, which were present at the time the writ was served. The complainant also alleged that the respondent sheriff, after being treated by the complainant, failed to seize the properties after the judgment debtor's counsel interceded and promised settlement by a certain date. Procedural History: The respondent sheriff, in his return, stated that the writ was duly served but not satisfied, claiming the judgment debtor had no properties exempt from execution and was willing to settle the obligation. The respondent, in his comment, explained that he did not levy on certain properties because they were exempt or subject to a prior lien, and he agreed to a promise of settlement by the judgment debtor, with the alleged consent of the complainant. The complainant reiterated his plea for a formal investigation. The Petition: The complainant sought disciplinary action against the respondent sheriff for alleged misconduct and negligence in the performance of his duties.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff was negligent in failing to levy on the properties of the judgment debtor. Whether the respondent sheriff had the authority to compromise with the judgment debtor or agree to a deferred settlement.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent sheriff guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties and suspended him from office for six (6) months without pay. The Court held that the sheriff's failure to levy on properties not exempt from execution was a dereliction of duty that impaired public faith in the administration of justice. The Court also ruled that a sheriff has no authority to compromise with a judgment debtor.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence in failing to levy on properties: The Court held that Section 15, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court explicitly makes it the duty of a sheriff to levy on all property of the judgment debtor not exempt from execution sufficient to satisfy the judgment and costs. While the respondent was justified in not levying on cooking utensils and tools of the trade, which are exempt, he was incumbent upon him to levy on other properties found within the premises. The claim of a prior lien on certain properties, such as the refrigerator, was not an excuse for the sheriff to shrink from his duty; the judgment debtor had a tangible and definable interest in these properties that was not exempt from execution. The sheriff's duty was to make the levy, and the lienholder could have protected its interest by filing a third-party claim. The respondent's failure to levy on the refrigerator, gas range, electric fan, and shoes constituted negligence. On the issue of the sheriff's authority to compromise: The Court found the respondent's contention that he acceded to the judgment debtor's promise to pay at a later date because of an alleged agreement with the complainant to be untenable. The sheriff's authority under a writ of execution does not embrace the power to compromise with the judgment debtor. Any extrajudicial agreement for settlement should be between the complainant and the judgment debtor. The respondent's unwarranted failure to levy on execution the properties of the judgment debtor not exempt from execution constitutes negligence in the performance of official duties, which not only caused damage to the complainant but more importantly impaired public faith and confidence in the administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's failure to levy on properties of a judgment debtor not exempt from execution, despite the presence of such properties, constitutes negligence in the performance of official duties and impairs public faith in the administration of justice. A sheriff cannot compromise with a judgment debtor; any extrajudicial agreement should be between the complainant and the judgment debtor.