A.M. No. P-06-2166 - Dignum vs. Diamla

Dr. Josefa T. Dignum, the complainant, filed a letter-complaint charging the respondents with violations of specific provisions of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (Canon I and Canon IV) and with gross misconduct and inefficiency in the discharge of their duties.
The respondents are Sheriffs Palao M. Diamla and Acmad C. Aliponto of the Regional Trial Court, Marawi City, Branch 9.

Complainant was the defendant in a civil case filed by Rosa Maria Lamparas for “Collection of Sum of Money, Accounting and Damages” (Civil Case No. 1127-94).
On March 31, 1997, the trial court rendered a decision ordering Dignum to pay Rosa Maria Lamparas a judgment debt consisting of a principal amount, interest, damages, litigation expenses, and costs.
A Writ of Execution was issued after the decision became final and executory.

The writ was implemented by levying various properties owned by the complainant, which included:

A parcel of land in Lower Langcangan, Oroquieta City with an area of 6,023 m², covered by an Original Certificate of Title and several Tax Declarations.
Two parcels of “coco” land in Lower Langcangan and at San Vicente Bejo, Oroquieta City with areas of 2,106 m² and 1,543 m² respectively.
A parcel of “riceland” at Pines, Oroquieta City measuring 2,500 m².

The total assessed value of these properties was P304,350.
The properties were sold at a public auction on April 23, 2003 to Hadja Perla Tur Macarampat for P1,094,322, with a redemption period that eventually lapsed.

Respondents levied additional properties despite the auction proceeds being more than sufficient to cover the judgment debt.
Every levy was accompanied by armed persons, causing the complainant undue distress and prompting intervention from the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Respondents failed to comply with procedural requirements, specifically by not submitting a return of the Writ or periodic reports as mandated under Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

The allegation indicated an abuse of authority and an overstepping of the respondents’ mandate, given that the value of the executed properties (as reflected in their tax declarations) did not justify further levies.

Sheriff Diamla explained that the armed men present were actually PNP escorts, whose deployment was coordinated with local law enforcement in Oroquieta City to ensure order during the execution.
He further contended that the values from the Tax Declarations were the basis for levying the properties and that any additional levies were carried out in reliance on those figures.
Regarding the failure to submit periodic reports, Diamla argued that the suspension in reporting was due to the complainant’s counsel subsequently filing an ex-parte notice to defer the execution, although this notice did not constitute a court order.
Sheriff Acmad C. Aliponto disclaimed involvement in certain proceedings and maintained that his participation was limited to serving notices of levy and garnishment.

The OCA found that the complainant failed to substantiate the true value of the properties sold at the execution, relying instead on the values provided in the tax declarations.
It was noted that inadequacy in the price obtained at the public auction did not, by itself, justify setting aside the sale, since the owner retained the right to redeem.
The OCA emphasized that the failure to make periodic reports, as required under Section 14, Rule 39, amounted to simple neglect of duty.
As a result, the OCA recommended discipline: a suspension from office for one month and one day without pay, with a stern warning regarding any repetition of similar conduct.

The court credited the respondents’ explanations in part, particularly regarding the use of PNP escorts during the execution.
However, it held that the execution of the writ—which is a ministerial function—must be pursued with reasonable dispatch and in strict compliance with the rules (including timely periodic reporting).
The ex-parte notice to defer execution was not a valid excuse for the lapse in periodic reporting.
Ultimately, the court found the respondents guilty of simple neglect of duty and imposed the administrative sanction as recommended.

Whether the presence and deployment of armed personnel during the execution process constituted an abuse of authority or was a permissible measure for maintaining order.
Whether the levying of additional properties, despite the values reflected in the tax declarations being sufficient to cover the judgment debt, was an overreach exceeding the respondents’ authority.
Whether the failure to submit the required periodic reports and return of the Writ of Execution under Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court amounts to simple neglect of duty.
Whether the respondents’ reliance on the tax assessments to determine property value and the submission of the ex-parte notice to defer execution serve as valid defenses against the allegations of misconduct.
Whether the administrative sanction imposed (suspension for one month and one day without pay) is appropriate given the nature of the neglect of duty and the impact on the execution of the court’s judgment.