Moya v. Bassig
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Jose L. Moya and Reynaldo B. Perez filed an administrative complaint against Renato A. Bassig, Deputy Sheriff, for dereliction of duty and abuse of authority. The complaint stemmed from Bassig's failure to sell personal properties levied upon under a writ of execution in Civil Case No. Q-16322, which involved the abatement of a nuisance (a fence) and a monetary award. The judgment in the civil case was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and a writ of execution was issued. A levy on personal properties was effected, and a public auction sale was scheduled for January 19, 1981. However, the sale was not conducted because the judgment debtor delivered a partial payment via check and promised to pay the balance, which was not fulfilled. Subsequently, the judgment debtors filed various legal maneuvers, including an appeal from an order dated January 5, 1981, and a petition for certiorari and prohibition which led to a restraining order from the Court of Appeals. Procedural History: The judgment debtors' petition for certiorari and prohibition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals, and its restraining order was set aside. The complainants repeatedly requested the respondent sheriff to proceed with the sale. After the sheriff failed to act, the complainants threatened an administrative suit, prompting the sheriff to set the sale for March 26, 1982. However, the sheriff again postponed the sale, citing the pendency of the Limsons' appeal (CA G.R. No. 68550) from the trial court's order dated January 5, 1981. The respondent sheriff's explanation for not proceeding with the sale was based on advice from counsel that executing the judgment would be malfeasance due to the pending appeal. The Investigating Judge found the respondent guilty of dereliction of duty. The Petition: This administrative case was initiated by the complainants against the respondent deputy sheriff for alleged violation of the Rules of Court, judicial orders, dereliction of duty, and abuse of authority. The core of the complaint is the respondent's failure to sell levied personal properties under a writ of execution, despite repeated requests from the complainants and the lifting of a restraining order by the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Deputy Sheriff was guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to proceed with the public auction sale of levied personal properties. Whether the pendency of an appeal concerning the abatement of a nuisance justified the indefinite cancellation of the sale of personal properties for the money judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent Renato A. Bassig guilty of dereliction in the performance of his official duties and ordered his separation from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the respondent Deputy Sheriff was guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to proceed with the public auction sale of levied personal properties: The Court held that the respondent was guilty of dereliction of duty. Section 20 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court clearly states that the sale of property on execution may only be prevented by payment of the amount required by the writ and the costs incurred. Furthermore, Section 24 of Rule 39 provides that a sale may be adjourned only by the written consent of both the debtor and the creditor. In this case, the respondent sheriff should have secured the written consent of both parties to cancel or adjourn the sale scheduled for January 19, 1981, and reset it to another date. Instead, the proceedings were abandoned without any return submitted to the trial court. The respondent also ignored the complainants' requests to proceed with the sale after the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in CA G.R. No. 11954-P, offering no explanation until the administrative complaint was filed. On Whether the pendency of an appeal concerning the abatement of a nuisance justified the indefinite cancellation of the sale of personal properties for the money judgment: The Court ruled that the pendency of the appeal (CA G.R. No. 68550) from the Order of January 5, 1981, could not have been an obstacle to the sale of personal properties for the money judgment. The appeal specifically related to the removal of the fence (the nuisance), not to the money judgment itself. Even if the respondent had doubts, he should have submitted at least a partial return to the trial court and sought clarification on the propriety of proceeding with the sale. The Court acknowledged that the respondent might have been overwhelmed by the various legal maneuvers, but as a deputy sheriff, he was responsible for the execution of the writ and should have sought guidance from the trial court to avoid suspicion of favoring one side. The Court reiterated that officers charged with the enforcement of judgments must act with considerable dispatch in the absence of a restraining order, lest court decisions become futile.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed that a sheriff is guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to proceed with the sale of levied personal properties under a writ of execution. The Court emphasized that the sale can only be prevented by payment of the judgment debt and costs, or by the written consent of both the debtor and creditor for adjournment. The pendency of an appeal concerning the removal of a fence did not justify the indefinite cancellation of the sale of personal properties for the money judgment, especially when the sheriff failed to seek clarification from the issuing court.