Cobarrubias v. Apostol
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Conrado E. Cobarrubias was the plaintiff in a suit for a sum of money with prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued, leading to the levy of a property owned by the defendant. A decision was rendered in favor of the complainant, and a writ of execution was issued. Respondent Arniel S. Apostol, Sheriff III, issued a Notice of Sheriff's Sale for the property. One day before the scheduled sale, Jacqueline de Lucia filed a Third-Party Claim. Respondent Sheriff required complainant to furnish an indemnity bond, which was provided. A second Notice of Sheriff's Sale was issued. However, respondent Sheriff did not conduct the auction sale on the re-scheduled date, as de Lucia had filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash Writ of Execution (with Motion to Suspend Auction Sale). The trial court later denied this motion. Procedural History: Complainant filed a complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against respondent Sheriff for failing to conduct the auction sale and for allegedly receiving excessive sheriff's fees. The OCA recommended that respondent Sheriff be held liable for serious misconduct and fined P5,000. The Court resolved to re-docket the complaint as a regular administrative matter. The Petition: Complainant alleged that respondent Sheriff failed to conduct the auction sale despite the posting of an indemnity bond and the absence of a court order stopping the sale. He also accused the respondent of receiving sheriff's fees beyond those allowed by law.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Sheriff committed refusal to perform official duty by failing to conduct the auction sale as scheduled. Whether respondent Sheriff is liable for receiving sheriff's fees beyond those allowed by law.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Sheriff Arniel S. Apostol guilty of refusal to perform official duty and suspended him for six months without pay. The Court found no evidence that respondent Sheriff received P16,655 in sheriff's fees, but found that he received P2,500 directly from the complainant, which is improper as sheriffs may only receive court-approved fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of refusal to perform official duty: The Court held that respondent Sheriff acted beyond the bounds of his authority by failing to conduct the auction sale. The posting of an indemnity bond by the complainant was meant to answer for damages de Lucia might suffer, serving as the Sheriff's shield against personal liability. The Rules of Court, specifically Section 16, Rule 39, clearly outline the procedure when a third-party claim is filed, and the Sheriff is not bound to keep the property unless the judgment obligee files an indemnity bond. Once the bond is filed, the Sheriff is not liable for damages to the third-party claimant. The Sheriff's justification that he waited for the court's resolution of the Omnibus Motion to ensure the implementation was "in accordance with law" was rejected. The Court emphasized that a sheriff's duty to execute a valid writ is ministerial and not discretionary. A purely ministerial act is performed in a prescribed manner without regard to the officer's own judgment. The Sheriff's failure to proceed with the sale, despite the indemnity bond and the absence of a court order to suspend it, constituted a grave offense of refusal to perform official duty. On the issue of sheriff's fees: The Court found no evidence that respondent Sheriff received P16,655 as alleged by the complainant, as this was merely a bare assertion. However, the Court noted that respondent Sheriff admitted receiving P2,500 for sheriff's expenses, stating it was "given" on certain dates. The Court found this admission problematic, especially since the Sheriff was accompanied by two unidentified companions during the posting of notices. Rule 141 of the Rules of Court authorizes a sheriff's legal fee of P500 for executing a writ of attachment, with additional sums requiring adherence to specific procedures, including court approval of estimated expenses and deposit with the Clerk of Court. The Sheriff failed to present any list of estimated expenses approved by the court or show liquidation of sums received. The Court concluded that the Sheriff received the P2,500 directly from the complainant, which is improper, as sheriffs may only receive court-approved fees. The Court stressed that the acceptance of any other amount is improper, even if applied for lawful purposes.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's duty to execute a valid writ is ministerial and not discretionary. Failure to proceed with an auction sale despite the posting of an indemnity bond and the absence of a court order to suspend the sale constitutes refusal to perform official duty.