Villareal v. Rarama
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Marianette Villareal filed a sworn complaint against respondents Rolando T. Rarama, Restituto Madrazo, Fidel Casuyon, and Aguinaldo del Campo, all serving as Sheriff III, for allegedly conniving and confederating in maliciously serving a writ of execution intended for another person. The case stemmed from a collection suit filed by Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City against spouses Marianette and Roy Villareal, Lito Lacorda, and Felimon Cangrejo. Judgment was rendered against Cangrejo, and an alias writ of execution was issued against him. Complainant alleged that Sheriff Rarama and other respondents, along with bank employees, went to her house and attached her properties based on the writ, despite her objections that it was not addressed to her and was served after more than five years. She was allegedly forced to sign an inventory receipt and subsequently paid P10,000.00 to have her properties released. Procedural History: The complaint was referred to respondent Sheriff Rarama for comment, and thereafter, respondents submitted their joint counter-affidavit, to which the complainant filed a reply and respondents a rejoinder. The case was referred to Executive Judge Augusto B. Breva for investigation, report, and recommendation. Judge Breva recommended that Sheriff Rarama be found guilty of an administrative offense and suspended for three months, with exoneration for the other respondents. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the findings and recommendations of the investigating judge.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Sheriff Rolando T. Rarama committed serious misconduct in the enforcement of the alias writ of execution. Whether respondents Restituto Madrazo, Fidel Casuyon, and Aguinaldo del Campo are administratively liable for their participation in the enforcement of the alias writ.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Sheriff Rolando T. Rarama guilty of serious misconduct in the enforcement of the alias writ of execution and ordered him to pay a fine of P10,000.00, with a stern warning. The complaint against respondents Restituto Madrazo, Fidel Casuyon, and Aguinaldo del Campo was dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Sheriff Rarama's misconduct: The Court found that Sheriff Rarama's defense was not credible. The alias writ of execution, although directed against Felimon Cangrejo, was served on complainant Marianette Villareal, as evidenced by her signature on the writ. The receipt issued for the attached properties was prepared in advance, with the names of "MARIANETTE & ROY VILLAREAL" already typewritten, indicating an intent to implement the writ against them. Furthermore, the receipt explicitly stated that the properties were levied and attached by virtue of the writ, contradicting the claim that they were merely deposited. The properties were not brought to the bank but to the MTCC, from which the complainant recovered them after a partial payment. The Court emphasized that a sheriff has no authority to levy on the property of any person other than the judgment debtor. Sheriff Rarama's act of enforcing the writ against complainant, who was not the judgment debtor, constituted improvidence and called for disciplinary action. The Court reiterated that execution must conform to the dispositive portion of the judgment, not merely the title of the case. On the issue of the other respondents' liability: The Court found no clear positive evidence that respondents Casuyon, Madrazo, and del Campo knew that the alias writ was directed only against Cangrejo. The complainant's testimony primarily named Sheriff Rarama and only vaguely referred to "the other sheriffs" or "the sheriffs" without particularizing their participation. She did not even identify them during the hearing. Therefore, the evidence did not warrant a finding of administrative accountability on their part.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff has no authority to levy on execution upon the property of any person other than that of the judgment debtor. If he does so, the writ of execution affords him no justification, for such act is not in obedience to the mandate of the writ. All acts of a sheriff which are not justified by the writ are without authority of law.