Cruz v. Dalisay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Adelio C. Cruz filed a sworn complaint against Quiterio L. Dalisay, Senior Deputy Sheriff of Manila, for malfeasance in office, corrupt practices, and serious irregularities. The charges stemmed from the respondent sheriff attaching and levying money belonging to complainant Cruz, who was not the judgment debtor in the NLRC case, but rather the company Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc. Additionally, the respondent allegedly caused the service of an alias writ of execution upon complainant Cruz, a resident of Pasay City, despite the respondent's territorial jurisdiction being limited to Manila. Procedural History: Respondent Dalisay explained that he was merely performing a ministerial duty when he garnished the cash deposit, citing an affidavit executed by complainant Cruz stating he was the owner/president of Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc., which led the counsel for the plaintiff in the labor case to advise the garnishment. The case was referred to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Manila for investigation. Subsequently, complainant Cruz executed an affidavit of desistance, stating the matter was a "misunderstanding" and he no longer wished to prosecute. The Executive Judge recommended dismissal. The Supreme Court, however, noted that complainant's desistance does not preclude disciplinary action. The Petition: The complainant charged the respondent sheriff with malfeasance, corrupt practices, and serious irregularities for levying funds from an individual not named as the judgment debtor and for exceeding territorial jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff committed malfeasance in office by levying funds from an individual who was not the judgment debtor in the NLRC case. Whether the respondent sheriff exceeded his territorial jurisdiction in serving the alias writ of execution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Respondent Deputy Sheriff Quiterio L. Dalisay NEGLIGENT in the enforcement of the writ of execution and imposed a fine equivalent to three (3) months' salary, with a stern warning against future similar offenses.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of levying funds from an individual not the judgment debtor: The Court held that the respondent sheriff's actuation in enforcing a judgment against complainant Cruz, who was not the judgment debtor, calls for disciplinary action. While the duty of a sheriff in enforcing writs of execution is ministerial, it is incumbent upon him to ensure that only that portion of a decision ordained or decreed in the dispositive part should be the subject of execution, no more and no less. The fact that the complainant's name appeared in the title of the case is of no moment, as execution must conform to the dispositive portion. The respondent improvidently assumed that complainant, as owner/president of Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc., was one and the same as the corporation, thereby "piercing the veil of corporate entity" without proper authority. The Court reiterated the well-settled doctrine that a corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members, and the mere fact that one is president does not render his personal property that of the corporation. On the issue of exceeding territorial jurisdiction: The Court noted that the writ of execution sought to be implemented was dated July 9, 1984, which was prior to the issuance of Administrative Circular No. 12. This circular restrains a sheriff from enforcing a court writ outside his territorial jurisdiction without first notifying and seeking the assistance of the sheriff of the place where execution is to take place. Therefore, the respondent's action in this regard, occurring before the said circular, was not considered a violation of that specific administrative rule.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff, in enforcing a writ of execution, must ensure that the execution conforms strictly to the dispositive portion of the judgment, and cannot unilaterally 'pierce the veil of corporate entity' by assuming that the individual owner/president of a corporation is the same as the corporation itself, as a corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its stockholders or members. Furthermore, while a sheriff's duty in enforcing writs is ministerial, this does not excuse negligence in ensuring the writ is properly directed.