Case Digest (A.M. No. 2796-P)
Facts:
Jose L. Moya and Reynaldo B. Perez v. Renato A. Bassig, Adm. Matter No. 2796-P, promulgated August 07, 1985, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The complainants are Jose L. Moya and Reynaldo B. Perez; the respondent is Renato A. Bassig, then Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XVII (now RTC, NCR, Branch LXXXVII, Quezon City). The complaint charged Bassig with violation of the Rules of Court and judicial orders, dereliction of duty and abuse of authority for failing to sell at public auction personal properties levied under a writ of execution in Civil Case No. Q-16322 (Perez et al. v. Limson et al.).The antecedent civil litigation: judgment for plaintiffs was rendered June 23, 1973, ordering removal of a fence and awarding P5,000 actual damages and P5,000 attorney’s fees; that judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. No. 53721-R. A writ of execution issued January 23, 1979; a levy on personal property was effected April 2, 1979; a public auction was scheduled for January 19, 1981. Complainants’ representative bid P7,500 but the sale did not proceed because the debtors, the Limsons, delivered to Bassig a check for P5,000 as partial payment and promised the balance. The Limsons thereafter filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. No. 11954-P), and on January 23, 1981 the Court of Appeals issued a restraining order against enforcement.
The trial court denied last-minute motions to suspend enforcement and an order of January 5, 1981 was followed by a notice of appeal filed January 13, 1981; a separate effort to suspend the sale was denied January 20, 1981. The Court of Appeals later dismissed the Limsons’ certiorari petition on October 6, 1981 and set aside its restraining order. Complainants wrote Bassig on October 20, October 29 and November 11, 1981, requesting that he proceed with the sale; Bassig did not act. After complainants threatened administrative action on March 15, 1982, Bassig set the sale for March 26, 1982 but then informed complainants by letter dated March 20, 1982 that he could not proceed because of a different appeal allegedly pending in the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. No. 68550).
By indorsement dated April 15, 1982 the Office of the Court Administrator required Bassig to comment; he did so May 6, 1982, explaining that he refrained from enforcing the sale because of the pendency of the Limsons’ appeal (CA G.R. No. 68550) and because counsel for the Limsons had advised that execution would be malfeasance and that the amount of execution no longer had legal effect. The OCA referred the matter to Executive Judge Ernani Cruz Pano for investigation, report and recommendation.
Judge Pano’s investigation found the facts above undisputed and concluded that Bassig was guilty of dereliction. The inquest report emphasized that (a) sale on execution may be prevented only by payment of the amount required by the writ (Rule 39, Sec. 20, Rules of Court); (b) adjournment of sale required written consent of debtor and creditor (Rule 39, Sec. 24); (c) the partial payment of P5,000 did not justify indefinite cancellation; (d) the pending appeal related to abatement of the fence, not to the money judgment; and (e) Bassig should have filed a return or sought clarification from the tr...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was respondent Renato A. Bassig guilty of dereliction in the performance of his official duties as deputy sheriff?
- Did the pendency of the Limsons’ appeal to the Court of Appeals (or the Limsons’ partial payment) legally bar the deputy sheriff from proceeding with the sale on execution?
- What disciplinary sanction, if any, is appropriate for...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)