Apostol v. Ipac
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Nelda Apostol filed an administrative complaint against respondent Sheriff IV Junie Jovencio Ipac. The case stemmed from Civil Case No. 809, an ejectment case where the RTC ruled in favor of Silver Spirit Plastics, Inc. (Silver Spirit) against CWB Plastics Corporation (CWB) et al. The RTC decision ordered CWB to vacate the premises and pay Silver Spirit substantial sums for unpaid rentals and attorney's fees. The case was remanded to the MTC for proper execution. Procedural History: The MTC issued a writ of execution to implement paragraphs (b) and (c) of the RTC decision against CWB and Mary Ann Deniza. Respondent sheriff was assigned to enforce the writ. On April 10, 2003, the writ was served on CWB. Subsequently, on August 14, 2003, respondent sheriff served a Notice of Levy on Execution on CWB's properties and took possession of a Toyota Corolla GLI. Complainant protested, claiming ownership of the vehicle and presenting a Certificate of Registration, Official Receipt, and a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 24, 2003, transferring ownership to her. The Petition: Complainant charged respondent with grave abuse of authority for taking possession of the vehicle despite her claim of ownership. Respondent refuted the claim, alleging the transfer of ownership was a fraudulent move by CWB to defraud Silver Spirit, as the vehicle was registered in CWB's name during the pendency of the case and the sale occurred after the writ of execution was served. Complainant countered that respondent should have filed a nullification case instead of levying the property and that he failed to state in the Certificate of Sale that the vehicle was subject to a third-party claim. The OCA found that the respondent erred in levying the vehicle over the complainant's claim of ownership and failed to state the third-party claim in the Certificate of Sale.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff committed grave abuse of authority in levying the vehicle despite the complainant's claim of ownership. Whether the respondent sheriff failed to observe his duty under Rule 39, Section 26 of the Rules of Court regarding a third-party claim.
Ruling
The complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of authority: The Court held that a sheriff's duty in executing a writ is purely ministerial. When a property levied upon is claimed by a third person, the sheriff must follow the procedure in Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court. This procedure requires the sheriff to demand an indemnity bond from the judgment obligee to protect the third-party claimant. In this case, the respondent sheriff did demand an indemnity bond from the judgment obligee, Silver Spirit, which was posted and approved by the court. This action shielded the sheriff from liability and allowed the sale of the property. The Court found that the complainant's remedy was to file an independent reinvindicatory action against the purchaser of the property at the public auction, not to hold the sheriff liable for grave abuse of authority. The Court also noted that the transfer of the vehicle's ownership to the complainant, who was the secretary/accountant of the judgment debtor CWB, occurred after the writ of execution was served, raising well-founded doubts about the motive behind the transfer. On the issue of failure to observe duty under Rule 39, Section 26: The Court found that the Certificate of Sale, dated August 25, 2003, was issued by Emmanuel L. Ortega, Ex-officio Sheriff, not by the respondent. Therefore, the respondent could not have failed to mention the third-party claim in a certificate he did not issue. The rule cited by the complainant pertains to the certificate of sale issued by the sheriff who conducted the sale. In this instance, the respondent sheriff followed the proper procedure by securing an indemnity bond before the sale proceeded, thereby fulfilling his ministerial duty.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial. When property levied upon is claimed by a third person, the sheriff must follow the procedure outlined in Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court, which includes demanding an indemnity bond from the judgment obligee to protect the third-party claimant.