Facts:

• Teresito D. Francisco is the complainant; Fernando Cruz is the respondent, a Deputy Sheriff.
• A civil suit, Maria Luisa Lacorte, et al. vs. Sps. Rosana and Teresito Francisco, was filed in 1989, resulting in a judgment against the complainant and his wife for P129,196.00 on November 20, 1989.
• A writ of execution was issued on January 16, 1990.
• Deputy Sheriff Cruz levied on the complainant's real property (house and lot) on January 17, 1990, despite other personal properties available to satisfy the judgment.
• An auction sale occurred on February 20, 1990, without the required notice of sale being posted.
• A certificate of sale was issued to the plaintiffs on February 23, 1990.
• The complainant filed a petition for recovery of possession, opposed by the plaintiffs who claimed the auction sale was valid.
• The complainant alleged violations of the Rules of Court and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
• Administrative complaints were filed in 1993 and consolidated for investigation.
• The respondent denied the allegations but admitted to not preparing a sheriff's return regarding notice postings.
• The investigation revealed the complainant and his wife did not redeem the property within the one-year redemption period, leading to the dismissal of their civil cases for lack of prosecution.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The court found that Deputy Sheriff Fernando Cruz did not violate the Rules of Court in executing the writ of execution.
• The court ruled that there was no evidence of conspiracy between the respondent and the plaintiffs.
• The court admonished the respondent for neglect of dut...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The execution of a writ is a ministerial duty of a sheriff; as long as the writ is regular and issued by a competent authority, the sheriff must execute it.
• The complainant's claims of irregularities were not supported by evidence, particularly regarding the alleged failure to post auction sale notices.
...continue reading