Son v. Leyva
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This administrative case arose from a complaint filed by Solomon Son, Finance and Operations Manager of Baclaran Marketing Corporation (BMC), against Rolando C. Leyva, a Sheriff IV at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 74, Antipolo City. The complaint alleged grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. These charges stemmed from Sheriff Leyva's act of levying and selling BMC's property at public auction to satisfy a money judgment of P765,159.55 in Civil Case No. 1218-A. Notably, the property sold had an assessed value of P33,395,000.00 and a market value of P19,890,000.00 at the time of the auction. Procedural History: The underlying dispute originated from Civil Case No. 1218-A, where the RTC initially ruled in favor of BMC. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision on appeal, a decision that became final due to BMC's lack of awareness. Subsequently, a Writ of Execution and an Order were issued for the levy of BMC's real properties. Sheriff Leyva proceeded to auction BMC's real property on April 17, 2006, without first demanding cash payment or levying on BMC's personal properties. He also failed to provide proper notice of the sale and submitted his Sheriff's Report over nine months after the auction. The respondent sheriff denied the charges, asserting he merely performed his ministerial duty. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter. After a referral for investigation, the Investigating Judge found substantial evidence against the respondent for procedural violations. The OCA subsequently recommended that the respondent be found guilty of gross neglect of duty and be suspended. The Petition: This Court reviewed the findings of the Investigating Judge and the OCA. The Court found that the respondent sheriff violated Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court by failing to demand cash payment first and by levying on real property before personal property. Furthermore, the sheriff improperly served notices through a private courier (LBC) without justification, violating Sections 8 and 11 of Rule 13. The Court also determined that the sheriff made an excessive levy, selling property significantly exceeding the judgment debt, contrary to the mandate to sell only what is sufficient. The Court concluded that the respondent committed gross neglect of duty and gross incompetence. Considering mitigating circumstances such as being a first-time offender and his considerable length of service, the Court adopted the OCA's recommendation, imposing a penalty of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay, with a stern warning against repetition.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Sheriff Leyva committed gross neglect of duty and gross incompetence in the enforcement of the writ of execution by violating the mandatory procedures prescribed by the Rules of Court in levying and selling BMC's property, including the order of levy, service of notices, and excessive levy. Whether the penalty of suspension for six months and one day without pay is appropriate given the mitigating circumstances of respondent's advanced age, being a first-time offender, and his considerable length of government service.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of the OCA. Respondent Rolando C. Leyva, Sheriff IV, was found guilty of gross neglect of duty and gross incompetence in the performance of official duties. He was meted the penalty of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or any similar act would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of procedures in the execution of a money judgment, improper service of notices, and excessive levy constituting gross neglect of duty and gross incompetence: The Court reiterated that Section 9, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court prescribes a specific order for enforcing judgments for money: first, demand cash payment; second, levy on personal properties; and third, if personal properties are insufficient, levy on real properties. Respondent Leyva failed to demand cash payment from BMC or its representative, Son, and did not levy on BMC's personal properties. Instead, he immediately proceeded to levy on BMC's real property. The Court emphasized that when writs are placed in the hands of sheriffs, it is their ministerial duty to execute them in accordance with the rules. Respondent's service of notices via LBC, a private courier, without any explanation why personal service or service by registered mail was not made, violated Sections 8 and 11 of Rule 13. Even if the levy on BMC's real property were permissible, the Court found that respondent made an excessive levy. The judgment debt was P765,159.55, while the property levied upon had a fair market value of P19,890,000.00. The Court defined gross neglect of duty as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act when there is a duty to act, willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences. It is a flagrant and palpable breach of duty. On the penalty: The Court considered mitigating circumstances, namely, respondent's advanced age, being a first-time offender, and his considerable length of government service (over twenty years). In light of these circumstances and humanitarian and equitable considerations, the Court adopted the OCA's recommendation to impose the penalty of suspension for six months and one day without pay, rather than dismissal, but with a stern warning against repetition of similar acts.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff who fails to follow the mandatory procedures in the execution of a money judgment, including demanding cash payment first, levying on personal properties before real properties, providing proper notice, and avoiding excessive levy, is guilty of gross neglect of duty and gross incompetence.