Case Digest (Adm. Matter No. P-1974)
Facts:
In the case of Pablo L. Barola vs. Victoriano L. Abogatal, the complainant, Pablo L. Barola, filed an administrative complaint against Victoriano L. Abogatal, a Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance in Misamis Occidental, Ozamiz City Branch II. The events leading to the complaint began with a judgment rendered on November 17, 1977, by Judge Melecio Genato in Civil Case No. OZ-623, which ordered Serapion Gomez to pay Barola P15,340 as damages for the death of Barola's mother, Felipa Lambayong. On January 15, 1978, a writ of execution to enforce this judgment was issued to Abogatal. Barola alleged that despite Abogatal listing several personal properties of Gomez that could be levied upon—including a refrigerator, two electric fans, a Singer sewing machine, and a stereo-phonograph—Abogatal failed to proceed with the auction sale. Barola claimed that this inaction was due to Abogatal receiving "a folded envelope" from Gomez.
In April 1978, Barola reporte...
Case Digest (Adm. Matter No. P-1974)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- In Civil Case No. OZ-623 of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, Judge Melecio Genato rendered a judgment on November 17, 1977, ordering defendant Serapion Gomez to pay P15,340 as damages for the death of Felipa Lambayong, the mother of complainant Pablo L. Barola.
Writ of Execution
- On January 15, 1978, a writ of execution to enforce the final judgment was given to Victoriano L. Abogatal, a deputy sheriff. Abogatal listed the personal properties of Gomez that could be levied upon, including a refrigerator, two electric fans or blowers, a Singer sewing machine, and a stereo-phonograph. He also instructed Gomez not to remove these properties and to post a bond.
Allegations of Dereliction of Duty
- Barola alleged that Abogatal did not proceed with the auction sale of the listed properties because he received "a folded envelope" from Gomez, the judgment debtor. This led Barola to denounce Abogatal to the President of the Philippines, the Secretary of Justice, and later to the Supreme Court for dereliction of duty.
Supporting Evidence
- Barola's complaint was supported by affidavits from Jesus Barola and Dimas Apique. Emil J. Sagrado, a newsman, also expressed his intention to testify in favor of Barola.
Abogatal’s Defense
- Abogatal claimed that he went to Gomez’s house to enforce the writ and instructed Gomez not to squander his properties. He explained that he could not make a return of the writ because Barola refused to return it to him. He also stated that the appliances were not salable and that Barola had no money to pay for freight.
Events During the Execution
- On January 16, 1978, Barola, Abogatal, and two others traveled to Iligan City to serve the writ. Abogatal assured Barola that he could seize Gomez’s refrigerator and electric fans. However, after lunch, Abogatal left without completing the levy. Barola later learned that Abogatal had met with Gomez, who handed him a small folded paper bag. Abogatal then told Barola to return to Ozamiz City, claiming Gomez was too poor to satisfy the judgment.
Failure to Satisfy the Judgment
- The judgment against Gomez remained unsatisfied, and Abogatal failed to return the writ of execution within the required period of 10 to 60 days.
Issue:
- Whether Victoriano L. Abogatal, as deputy sheriff, committed dereliction of duty by failing to enforce the writ of execution.
- Whether Abogatal’s failure to levy on Gomez’s properties and his delay in returning the writ of execution constituted negligence or misconduct.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court found Abogatal guilty of dereliction of duty. He failed to levy on the refrigerator and electric fans belonging to Gomez and to sell them at public auction. Additionally, he failed to return the writ of execution within the required period of 10 to 60 days. His alibi that the writ was in Barola’s possession was deemed unmeritorious and indicative of carelessness.
The Court imposed a fine equivalent to one month’s salary on Abogatal, with a warning that a repetition of such infraction would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio:
- A sheriff has a ministerial duty to enforce writs of execution promptly and diligently. Abogatal’s failure to levy on Gomez’s properties and his delay in returning the writ of execution violated Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that a writ of execution must be returned within 10 to 60 days after its receipt. His negligence in handling the writ and his failure to fulfill his duties as a sheriff constituted dereliction of duty, warranting disciplinary action.