A.M. No. 15-05-136-RTC, P-16-3450 - IN RE: Rogelio M. Salazar, Jr.

Ma. Cecilia Fermina T. Roxas, Manager and Corporate Secretary of ROTA Creditline Finance Corporation (ROTA), filed a letter-complaint on July 17, 2014, with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) - Legal Office.
The complaint was filed against Allen Francisco S. Sicat, Sheriff III of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Angeles City, Pampanga, for alleged gross inefficiency and misconduct.
ROTA routinely filed collection cases, securing judicial or extra-judicial foreclosures based on favorable rulings, which often involved alleged irregular practices during the execution of court processes.

The administrative complaint stemmed from issues in Civil Case No. 10-826 (ROTA Creditline Finance Corp. v. Arnold Cruz, et al.).
During mediation on September 30, 2010, only the representatives of ROTA and defendant Miradora Mejia appeared, resulting in a Compromise Agreement that set the debtor’s obligation at P200,539.00.
The Agreement stipulated installment payments and provided that failure to pay two consecutive installments would cause the remaining balance to become immediately demandable with the issuance of a writ of execution.
The Compromise Agreement was approved by the court on November 12, 2010, noting that Miradora Mejia was the sole signatory and thus solely bound.

On November 11, 2011, ROTA, through its counsel, filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, which was granted on March 9, 2012, and subsequently issued on March 12, 2012.
Respondent Sheriff Sicat was ordered to enforce the judgment by levying on the defendant’s goods and properties.
Seven months later, a Levy on Execution/Attachment Replevin (dated October 30, 2012) was issued, attaching a real property registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 502474-R in the name of defendant Renato Nunag and his wife, even though Nunag was not a signatory to the Compromise Agreement.
The Notice of Sheriff’s Sale was delayed; it was eventually issued on November 4, 2013, setting the auction sale on December 10, 2013. Despite this, there existed discrepancies in the records regarding the auction date, with some documents indicating November 4, 2013, and others listing November 29, 2013 or December 10, 2013.
During the auction, complaints arose regarding:

The sale being executed at the compromise amount of P200,539.63 instead of reflecting the actual outstanding loan of P715,223.57.
Complainant’s two bidding attempts (one at P2,000,000.00 and an amended bid at P720,000.00) being disregarded so that the sale price remained fixed at the judgment amount.

Respondent’s actions during the implementation of the writ included failure to adhere to prescribed procedures regarding:

Additional irregularities included the unilateral discharge of the levy on Renato Nunag’s property without an accompanying motion before the court and questionable remarks suggesting a conflict of interest when respondent casually mentioned an interest in purchasing the property.

Executive Judge Katrina Nora S. Buan-Factora conducted an investigation and produced a comprehensive report highlighting procedural lapses in the implementation of the writ.
The report underscored failures such as the absence of:

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its memorandum dated October 6, 2016, found respondent Sheriff Sicat guilty of gross neglect of duty, misconduct, and inefficiency.
The OCA recommended administrative sanctions, including dismissal from service, citing prior disciplinary records (notably A.M. No. P-00-1423 from 2004).

Did respondent fail to submit and secure approval for an estimate of the expenses incurred in the execution of the writ as required by law?
Was there a failure to file the mandatory return or periodic report on the progress of the execution?

Were the Notice of Sale and publication procedures properly observed, including the scheduling, notice to the judgment debtor, and the publication process?
Do the discrepancies and documented irregularities in the auction dates indicate a simulated auction sale?

Did the respondent improperly receive direct payments from the winning bidder, thereby violating the mandatory protocols governing the handling and deposit of sheriff’s fees?
Does the acceptance of these funds constitute misappropriation or unauthorized fees?

In light of prior disciplinary actions against respondent, is dismissal from service warranted in view of the current findings of gross neglect, inefficiency, and misconduct?
Is there compelling evidence to support the recommendation for severe administrative sanctions, including forfeiture of retirement benefits?