Go v. Costelo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Aurora B. Go alleged that respondent Sheriff Margarito A. Costelo, Jr. conducted an auction sale of her parcel of land on November 8, 2001, pursuant to a Writ of Execution issued by the MTCC of Cebu City in an ejectment case. Complainant, who was in Taiwan at the time, claimed that despite her sister Anita Conde presenting proof of ownership and advising the sheriff to avail of legal remedies, the sheriff proceeded with the sale. Complainant further alleged that the sheriff took advantage of her absence, showed partiality to the prevailing party Doris Sunbanon, falsified the signature on the notice of auction, failed to properly post the notice, did not acknowledge the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Conde, and falsified the Certificate of Sale by stating it was notarized on November 8, 2001, when records showed otherwise. Complainant also questioned the auction's validity due to a typhoon on the said dates and alleged the sheriff misled Conde into believing no auction would occur. Procedural History: The complaint was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The OCA recommended referral to an RTC judge for investigation, which the Supreme Court adopted. However, the complainant moved for the judge's inhibition, leading the Court to recall its resolution and direct another RTC judge to conduct the investigation. The investigating judge found the respondent sheriff acted without authority in conducting the auction sale and that the Certificate of Sale and Minutes of Auction Sale were fictitious and fabricated. The investigating judge recommended dismissal from the service. The respondent filed motions for reconsideration, presenting an affidavit of recantation from the notary public, Daily Time Records, an order from another case, and a PNP Crime Laboratory Report. The OCA evaluated these and recommended that the case be redocketed as a regular administrative case and that the respondent be dismissed from the service, finding no reason to disturb the investigating judge's findings and deeming the new evidence as belated and unreliable. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the investigating judge, affirmed by the OCA, finding the respondent sheriff guilty of grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and falsification of official document.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Sheriff Margarito A. Costelo, Jr. acted without authority in conducting the public auction sale of the subject property. Whether the public auction sale and the Certificate of Sale were valid and genuine. Whether respondent Sheriff Margarito A. Costelo, Jr. committed grave misconduct, abuse of authority, and falsification of official document.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Sheriff Margarito A. Costelo, Jr. guilty of grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and falsification of official document. The Court dismissed him from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or agency.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Sheriff Margarito A. Costelo, Jr. acted without authority in conducting the public auction sale of the subject property: The Court affirmed the investigating judge's finding that the respondent sheriff acted without authority. The Order dated September 25, 2001, from the MTCC, Branch 2, Cebu City, clearly authorized the sheriff to levy on the property for the satisfaction of the deficiency judgment, but it did not grant him the power to conduct a public auction sale. The Court emphasized that the authority to conduct the auction sale should have been exercised by the sheriff of the issuing court (MTCC, Branch 2, Cebu City) or delegated by them, as provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The respondent sheriff's act of proceeding with the auction sale without explicit authority constituted a transgression of established rules and a dereliction of duty. On whether the public auction sale and the Certificate of Sale were valid and genuine: The Court found that the public auction sale could not have validly taken place on November 8, 2001. This was supported by certifications from Cebu PAGASA and the Philippine Coast Guard indicating a typhoon with heavy rains and strong winds, making travel between islands impossible and likely causing suspension of office work. Furthermore, the judgment creditor, Doris Sunbanon, did not present evidence of her presence at the auction, nor did any court personnel from RTC, Branch 11, Calubian, Leyte, testify to holding office on that date despite the storm. The Court also gave credence to the testimony of Notary Public Roberto Dela Peña, who denied notarizing the Certificate of Sale and stated his signature on it was a forgery. The entries in the notarial register for that date pertained to a different document, further indicating the falsity of the Certificate of Sale. On whether respondent Sheriff Margarito A. Costelo, Jr. committed grave misconduct, abuse of authority, and falsification of official document: The Court concluded that the respondent sheriff's actions constituted grave misconduct, defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, or a dereliction of duty, which is willful and improper. His conduct was deemed flagrant and beyond excuse. By conducting an auction sale without authority and falsifying the Certificate of Sale, he committed abuse of public authority and falsification of an official document. These acts are in direct violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and administrative rules, warranting the supreme penalty of dismissal from the service.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff who conducts a public auction sale without authority and falsifies a Certificate of Sale commits grave misconduct, abuse of authority, and falsification of official document, warranting dismissal from the service.