Herbert Malmis v. Jerome Paul Bungabong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Engr. Herbert Malmis charged respondent Sheriff IV Jerome Paul Bungabong with dereliction of duty for failing to issue a Bill of Final Sale for a parcel of land levied and sold at public auction on December 12, 2000, where the complainant was the highest bidder. The Certificate of Sale, registered on January 8, 2001, stipulated that the period of redemption expires one year from registration. Procedural History: The complainant sent two letters reminding the respondent of his duty. The respondent, after the second letter, replied that the trial court advised him not to issue the Bill of Final Sale. The respondent explained that he learned of a pending case involving the same property before RTC, Branch 2, Bohol, where Laurito Malinao claimed ownership and sought the cancellation of the lis pendens annotation. Although the RTC dismissed Malinao's petition, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, ordering the cancellation of the original and owner's copy of the TCT and the issuance of a new one in Malinao's name, and annulling the lis pendens annotation. This CA decision became final and executory. The Petition: The complainant alleged that the respondent failed and continued to fail to issue the Bill of Final Sale despite the expiration of the redemption period.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff committed dereliction of duty by failing to issue the Bill of Final Sale, considering his duty to execute orders promptly but also his need for prudence and caution. Whether the respondent sheriff's reliance on the Court of Appeals decision and verbal advice from his judge absolved him from liability, and whether his inaction caused grave prejudice to the complainant.
Ruling
The Court resolved to DISMISS the administrative charges against respondent sheriff Jerome Paul Bungabong but WARNED him to be more diligent in the performance of his duty.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dereliction of duty: The Court acknowledged that sheriffs have a ministerial duty to serve court writs and execute orders promptly. However, this duty is not without limitations. Sheriffs are expected to exercise prudence, caution, and diligence, knowing what is inherently right and wrong. In this case, before the redemption period expired, the respondent sheriff was informed of another case involving the same property, which had resulted in a final and executory Court of Appeals decision adjudicating the property to Laurito Malinao. This development placed the respondent in a quandary regarding the issuance of the certificate of final sale. The Court found that the respondent should have followed the procedure outlined in Mamanteo vs. Magumun, which involves preparing a partial sheriff's return to officially inform the judge of the situation and await instructions, rather than relying on verbal advice. On the issue of reliance on the Court of Appeals decision and verbal advice: While the respondent sheriff's failure to issue the Bill of Final Sale was noted, the Court considered that his inaction did not cause grave prejudice to the complainant because the property had already been adjudicated to Laurito Malinao by a final and executory Court of Appeals decision prior to the auction sale. Furthermore, the complainant failed to demonstrate that the sheriff's actions were attended by bad faith and malice. The Court adopted the light penalty recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator, which was to admonish the respondent and warn him to be more circumspect in performing his official functions.
Main Doctrine
While sheriffs have a ministerial duty to serve court writs and execute orders, this duty is not absolute and must be exercised with prudence and diligence. In cases of conflicting court orders or developments affecting the property subject of execution, a sheriff should inform the trial court through a partial sheriff's return and await instructions, rather than unilaterally refusing to act or relying on verbal advice.