Sayson v. Luna
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Gloria R. Sayson, Francisco R. Rellorosa, and Rustico Y. Caparas charged Efren Luna, Sheriff III of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 37, Quezon City, with grave misconduct and/or conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service. They alleged that Gregorio Rellorosa informed them that his car would be levied upon and sold at public auction on July 15, 1999, pursuant to a writ of execution. They agreed to participate in the bidding, subject to Rellorosa's right to redeem the car within one year at the bid price plus accrued interest. The complainants met Rellorosa and agreed to pool resources to be the highest bidder. They also met the respondent sheriff, who informed them that the auction sale had been postponed to July 19, 1999, causing them to leave. However, they later learned from Rellorosa that the respondent sheriff conducted the auction sale of the car at 2:00 p.m. on July 15, 1999. Procedural History: The respondent sheriff, in his comment, narrated that he levied the car pursuant to a writ of execution and the auction sale was set for July 15, 1999, with due notice to Gregorio Rellorosa. He stated that three days prior, on July 12, 1999, Gregorio Rellorosa filed a "Petition for Relief from Judgment with Urgent Prayer for Preliminary Injunction Inter Alia and Temporary Restraining Order to Stop Sheriff's Sale Scheduled on July 15, 1999." The respondent claimed he informed Gregorio Rellorosa that his motion was denied and that the auction sale would proceed later that day once the order was signed. He advised Rellorosa to wait for the plaintiff to ask if the auction would be postponed, but Rellorosa left. The case was referred to the Executive Judge, who recommended the exoneration of the respondent, opining that the latter substantially complied with the requirements for conducting a public auction. The Petition: The complainants charged the respondent sheriff with grave misconduct and/or conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff committed grave misconduct and/or conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service. Whether the respondent sheriff acted in accordance with the writ of execution and the rules governing public auctions.
Ruling
The Court resolved to DISMISS the complaint against respondent Efren Luna, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 37, Quezon City, for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the respondent sheriff committed grave misconduct and/or conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service: The Court found that the respondent sheriff acted in accordance with the Writ of Execution dated June 11, 1999. A sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial; they are to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter and have no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. The notice of levy and sale showed that the sale was scheduled for July 15, 1999, at 10:00 a.m. or soon thereafter. This notice was served on July 8, 1999, which was more than five days before the scheduled auction sale, satisfying the legal requirement. Furthermore, a sheriff's report, such as the Minutes of the Auction Sale, is clothed with the presumption of regularity. Since the complainants did not object to this report, it must be upheld. The complainants failed to substantiate their charges against the respondent with cogent proof. As against bare allegations of misconduct, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions prevails. On whether the respondent sheriff acted in accordance with the writ of execution and the rules governing public auctions: The respondent sheriff's actions were found to be in compliance with the writ of execution. The notice of levy and sale was properly served within the prescribed period. The respondent sheriff also correctly proceeded with the auction sale after being informed that the motion for postponement was denied, and that the sale would proceed later in the day. His communication with Gregorio Rellorosa regarding the potential postponement and the advice to wait for the plaintiff's decision were part of his ministerial duty to execute the writ. The Executive Judge's finding that the respondent substantially complied with the requirements for the conduct of a public auction was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The complainants' failure to present evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of the sheriff's official duties led to the dismissal of the complaint.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial, and they are to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter, having no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. Allegations of misconduct must be substantiated with cogent proof; otherwise, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions shall prevail.