Abul, Jr. v. Viajar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr. filed an administrative case against Sheriff IV George E. Viajar for Dishonesty, Grave Abuse of Authority, Usurpation of Judicial Authority, and Malfeasance and Graft and Corruption. The complainant alleged that the respondent received a Writ of Execution on March 26, 2010, but only filed the Sheriff's Return of Service on June 21, 2010. It was further alleged that the respondent arrogated judicial powers by receiving ₱68,000 from the judgment creditor without depositing it with the court and by submitting an unreasonably high Sheriff's fees with padded and imaginary charges. Specific charges included unreceipted amounts, publication of a Sheriff's Notice of Sale without proper raffle, lifting of levy fees, representation allowances, and a withheld amount from the judgment creditor. The respondent allegedly failed to demand payment directly from the judgment creditor, made an unauthorized determination that Fast Cargo Transport Corporation was the same as Fast Cargo Logistics Corporation, mailed the writ to Cebu City instead of serving it, conducted an illegal levy garnishment and sale without notice to the judgment debtor, conducted a simulated bidding, received ₱800,000 for the bid without depositing it, charged additional expenses and Sheriff's fees, and allowed the judgment debtor to withdraw a significant amount before informing the court. Procedural History: The case was re-docketed as a regular administrative complaint and referred to the Executive Judge for investigation. The Executive Judge found that the respondent committed several violations, including failing to personally serve the writ, mailing it instead, failing to give the judgment debtor an option to choose levied properties, not making periodic reports on the writ, failing to prove proper publication of the Notice of Sale, taking it upon himself to deliver the bid amount and concluding the corporate name change, charging exorbitant expenses, and failing to submit receipts for various amounts. The investigating judge noted the respondent's initial admission of remissness, followed by a recantation. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with the investigating judge's findings and recommended a penalty of suspension for six months, to be deducted from retirement benefits due to the respondent's retirement. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the OCA and the investigating judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff committed dishonesty and grave misconduct in the performance of his duties, including unauthorized expenses and handling of funds. Whether the respondent sheriff failed to comply with the Rules of Court regarding the execution of a writ of execution, including making periodic reports, demanding payment, affording the judgment debtor the option to choose levied properties, and proper publication of sale. Whether the respondent sheriff usurped judicial authority by determining corporate identity without seeking clarification, and engaged in malfeasance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found George E. Viajar guilty of grave misconduct and serious dishonesty. The Court imposed the penalty of suspension from office without pay for one year. In view of Viajar's retirement from the service, the Court directed the Finance Division, Financial Management Office of the OCA to deduct the amount corresponding to his one year's salary from the retirement benefits due him.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of including unauthorized expenses and handling funds: The respondent admitted to accommodating the judgment creditor's request to include a lawyer's expense of ₱176,112.60, which was not part of the judgment, even though he knew it was not a valid claim. This action went beyond the terms of the writ. Additionally, the respondent's handling of the bid amount and Sheriff's fees, including charging exorbitant amounts and failing to submit receipts for several items, further demonstrated dishonesty and misconduct. The Court found these actions to be serious dishonesty. On the issue of failure to comply with the Rules of Court: The Court addressed several points: (1) On the issue of failure to make periodic reports: The Court reiterated that sheriffs have a ministerial duty to make periodic reports to the court every 30 days on the proceedings taken on a writ of execution until the judgment is satisfied in full or its effectivity expires, as mandated by Section 14, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. The respondent's failure to submit these periodic reports, despite his explanation that activities were still ongoing, was a clear violation of this rule. (2) On the issue of demanding payment and affording the option to choose levied properties: The Court found that the respondent failed to show that he personally demanded immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ from the judgment debtor, nor did he demonstrate that he afforded the judgment debtor the option to choose which of its real or personal properties would be levied upon, as required by Section 9(b) of Rule 39. Instead, the respondent proceeded to levy upon the property without fulfilling these procedural requirements. (3) On the issue of publication of the sale: The Court agreed with the OCA that the respondent failed to prove that The People's Guardian was selected by raffle as required by Section 15(c), Rule 39. Furthermore, the respondent could not present a copy of the newspaper clipping or an affidavit of publication, and the official receipt for the publication fee was dated after the supposed publication dates. This failure cast serious doubt on the regularity and legality of the sale proceedings. On the issue of usurping judicial authority: The Court held that a sheriff's duty to execute a judgment is ministerial, and they should not look beyond the plain meaning of the writ. When faced with an ambiguous situation, such as the apparent change in corporate name from Fast Cargo Transport Corporation to Fast Cargo Logistics Corporation, the respondent should have sought clarification from the judge. Instead, he unilaterally decided they were the same entity based on the word of the judgment creditor's counsel, which was improper. This action demonstrated a failure to exercise prudence and reasonableness.
Main Doctrine
Sheriffs are agents of the law and must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence. Failure to comply with the Rules of Court regarding the execution of writs, including making periodic reports, demanding payment, affording debtors the option to choose levied properties, and proper publication of sales, constitutes grave misconduct and serious dishonesty, warranting disciplinary action.