Del Rosario v. Bascar, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants charged Deputy Sheriff Jose T. Bascar, Jr. with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Levying Properties Unreasonably and Unnecessarily with Malice and Abuse of Authority, and Gross/Wilful Violation of Law. The case stemmed from a decision in HSRC Case No. REM-0006-210685, which ordered respondents (including Esperanza del Rosario and Manuel U. del Rosario) to perform specific actions, including applying for a Certificate of Registration, accepting installment payments, executing a Deed of Sale, registering a Contract of Sale, paying a fine of P2,000.00, and developing subdivision amenities. Complainants alleged that respondent Bascar, in implementing the writ of execution, committed gross ignorance of the law by levying on three parcels of land owned by Miradel Development Corporation, where Esperanza del Rosario had alleged shares, interests, and participation, to satisfy the judgment involving specific performance and a P2,000.00 fine. They contended the levy was excessive and that personal properties could have satisfied the judgment. Procedural History: Respondent Bascar filed a comment, asserting the levy was to protect the rights of the prevailing parties due to complainants' refusal to comply and that the transfer to Miradel Development Corporation was made in bad faith. The case was referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, for investigation. The Executive Judge found that respondent Bascar erred in levying on Miradel Development Corporation's lots but acted in good faith, recommending only an admonition. The Supreme Court disagreed with the recommendation. The Petition: The complainants charged Deputy Sheriff Jose Bascar, Jr. with gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority for allegedly levying properties unreasonably and unnecessarily in implementing a writ of execution for specific performance.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent deputy sheriff committed gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority in levying on three parcels of land owned by Miradel Development Corporation. Whether the respondent's actuations in enforcing the writ of execution were attended with malice and were done so as to prejudice a third party. Whether the respondent's conduct was prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent deputy sheriff guilty of gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, imposing a fine of P5,000.00. The Court disagreed with the investigating judge's recommendation of a mere admonition, holding that the respondent's unjustifiable acts demanded sanction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority in levying on Miradel Development Corporation's properties: The Court held that respondent Bascar acted with gross ignorance of the law in making an unreasonable and unnecessary levy while enforcing a writ of execution for specific performance and a P2,000.00 fine. He deviated from the writ's decree by levying on three lots allegedly part of those already sold to Miradel Development Corporation by the complainants. The Court emphasized that a sheriff's ministerial duty in enforcing writs requires ensuring that only what is decreed in the dispositive part is executed, no more, no less. Respondent made no effort to limit the levy to the amount called for in the writ. Furthermore, he had no reason to levy on the corporation's lots, even with Esperanza del Rosario as treasurer, as he lacked the authority to pierce the veil of corporate entity. The Court reiterated the well-settled doctrine that a corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its stockholders, and the sheriff cannot assume that the corporation and its officers are one and the same. It was not incumbent upon the sheriff to determine how to safeguard the prevailing party's rights; his duty was to serve the writ, and if compliance failed, the prevailing party should seek the court's aid. On whether the respondent's actuations were attended with malice and prejudice to a third party: The Court found that while the respondent's actuations were unreasonable, there was a failure to establish with certainty that they were attended with malice or done to prejudice a third party. The respondent explained his intent was to protect the prevailing parties' interests over the lots in controversy, fearing they might be disposed of by the complainants. Although he erroneously levied on the corporation's lots, this act, when viewed in light of his stated purpose and subsequent withdrawal of the levy, could not be looked upon with malicious intent. The withdrawal of the notice of levy demonstrated his lack of malice and served to mitigate his liability. On whether the respondent's conduct was prejudicial to the best interest of the service: The Court concluded that the respondent's actuations in enforcing the writ of execution did not live up to the strict standard required of those connected with the dispensation of justice. His conduct, which should be above suspicion, was characterized by an unreasonable and unnecessary levy, deviating from the writ's mandate and overstepping his ministerial duties by assuming the power to pierce the corporate veil. This conduct was deemed prejudicial to the best interest of the service, necessitating a sanction beyond a mere admonition.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's ministerial duty in enforcing a writ of execution requires adherence to the dispositive portion of the judgment; an unreasonable and unnecessary levy, especially on property of a distinct legal entity, constitutes gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting a fine.