A.M. No. P-00-1446 - Plantilla vs. Baliwag

Retired Col. Paterno R. Plantilla, acting as administrator for spouses Mariano L. Orga and Eva R. Plantilla, filed an administrative complaint.
The complaint charged Sheriff Rodrigo G. Baliwag with irregularities in enforcing the Writ of Execution issued on January 16, 1998, which was meant to implement a civil judgment.

Declaration of a tenancy relationship under the share tenancy system over a parcel of approximately 10.2198 hectares.
Reinstatement or maintenance of Milagros Suiza as a share-tenant, with her right to appropriate labor from her household.
Payment by the defendants of damages—specifically, P1,000.00 per harvest (with legal interest until fully paid) for the unrealized share of the coconut harvests, and P8,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus the costs of the suit.

The Writ of Execution instructed the sheriff to enforce these provisions and to “make a return of [his] proceedings” within 30 days, until the judgment was fully satisfied.

Sheriff Baliwag served the Writ of Execution on Col. Plantilla (the complainant) but did not serve it on the judgment debtors, despite having their current addresses.
He issued various correspondences, including:

A letter dated September 22, 1998, stating an account balance of P481,340.00 allegedly representing the coconut harvests, computed at P1,000.00 per harvest with interest.
A demand letter dated January 25, 1999, and a Notice of Levy on Execution, leading to the levy on the defendants’ property (T.C.T. No. T-87223).
Publication of the auction notice in Laguna Newsweek for the sale of the levied property, though questions were raised regarding proper publication and notice to the defendants.

The dispositive decision did not specify whether there should be eight harvests per year nor did it state the interest rate to be applied.
Sheriff Baliwag unilaterally assumed:

That there were eight harvests per year.
That interest at 12% per annum should be applied from August 1979, effectively benefiting each P1,000.00 share.

The complainant argued that, since the P1,000.00 per harvest was in the nature of damages, the legal interest should have been fixed at 6% per annum and computed from the actual time of each harvest rather than retroactively from August 1979.

A copy of the Writ of Execution was sent to the defendants’ U.S. address, although it was returned for insufficiency.
The General Power of Attorney delegated notice responsibilities to the complainant, making his own service sufficient.
The determination of eight harvests per year was previously affirmed by both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, and even by the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the lower court’s decision in spirit.
The imposition of 12% interest was justified on the ground that, in the absence of a usury law, such computation was valid—especially considering that the plaintiffs were ejected from the land in July 1979.
Notice of the auction sale had been properly published and served, despite minor irregularities in address and communication.

While the allegation regarding the specification of eight harvests was found untenable, the respondent was at fault for unilaterally fixing the interest rate at 12% per annum starting from August 1979.
The correct interest rate should have been 6% per annum, computed from the date of judgment or the time of each harvest, considering the nature of the damages.

The OCA recommended a fine of P5,000 against Sheriff Baliwag and cautioned that any repetition of such an offense would warrant harsher penalties.

Whether the Sheriff, in the execution of the writ, improperly assumed a judicial function by computing the exact amount due (including interests, costs, and damages) without such precision being specified in the writ.
Whether the application of a 12% interest rate from August 1979 was correct, given that the nature of the obligation (damages for delayed payment of harvest shares) warranted only a 6% per annum interest.
Whether the failure to properly serve the judgment debtors and to offer them the option to select the portion of property to be levied violated the mandated execution procedures.
Whether the actions of the respondent, including altering the established computations and imposing additional conditions, constitute malfeasance liable to administrative sanction.