Elipe v. Fabre
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Victor Elipe filed an administrative complaint against respondent Honesto G. Fabre, Deputy Sheriff of MTCC, Cagayan de Oro City, for nonfeasance and incompetence. The complaint stemmed from the alleged failure of the respondent to properly enforce a writ of execution issued on June 19, 1992, for the collection of P100,000.00 in unpaid rentals and construction materials. Complainant testified that on June 25, 1992, respondent served the writ but only levied upon a dilapidated vehicle and an old piano. Subsequently, the judgment debtors surreptitiously removed several pieces of furniture and other personal properties, and destroyed building fixtures from the property owned by the complainant on various dates between June 25 and July 19, 1992. Complainant alleged that respondent made no effort to prevent the removal of leviable properties despite being informed of the judgment debtors' activities. Procedural History: The investigating judge, Judge Antonio A. Orcullo, found the charges true and recommended a reprimand and a stern warning. The Office of the Court Administrator concurred with the findings and recommended a fine of P1,000.00 and a stern warning. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed by Victor Elipe against Deputy Sheriff Honesto G. Fabre.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Deputy Sheriff was guilty of nonfeasance and incompetence in the performance of his duties in enforcing the writ of execution. Whether the respondent Deputy Sheriff failed to act with reasonable celerity and promptness in executing the writ of execution.
Ruling
The Court imposed a FINE of P2,000.00 on Deputy Sheriff Honesto G. Fabre, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or of any act calling for disciplinary action will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of nonfeasance and incompetence in enforcing the writ of execution: The Court found the respondent Deputy Sheriff guilty of nonfeasance and incompetence. The record disclosed that despite a writ of execution for P100,000.00, the respondent only managed to levy properties that were sold for a total of P27,007.00. The Deputy Court Administrator found that due to the respondent's inaction and lack of diligence, the judgment debtors were able to cart away valuable properties that could have been levied upon. The respondent's justification that he did not have an order to force open a locked door on the second floor was deemed insufficient, as it was his duty to inform the complainant that a special order was necessary and to secure such an order. The Court emphasized that when a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate, and he has no discretion whether to execute it or not. On the failure to act with reasonable celerity and promptness: The Court held that the respondent sheriff exhibited an utter disregard of his duties. He levied on properties that were eventually sold for only P27,000.00, despite the P100,000.00 obligation. The Court noted that if the respondent were dedicated, he could have chosen to stop the carting away of valuable properties for the purpose of levying them and complying with the order. The respondent's argument that he needed a special court order to force entry into the second floor, while potentially true regarding forced entry, did not absolve him from the duty to diligently pursue the execution of the writ and to inform the complainant of the necessary steps. His lackadaisical attitude betrayed his inefficiency and incompetence, which are grounds for disciplinary action.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff is mandated to levy upon properties of a judgment debtor to satisfy an obligation and has no discretion whether to execute a writ or not. Failure to act with reasonable celerity and promptness in executing a writ, resulting in injury to the judgment creditor, makes the sheriff liable.