Facts:

Crispin Sarmiento (complainant) was charged with eight counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 20 (MeTC-Br. 20), under Criminal Case Nos. 345095-102-CR. On September 22, 2003, he was acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt. However, following a motion from the prosecution, the trial court amended its decision on February 3, 2004, ordering Crispin to pay the private complainants, spouses Daniel and Blesilda Inciong, P295,000 in actual damages plus legal interest of 12% per annum from the filing of the case. After the decision became final and executory, the spouses Inciong filed a motion for a writ of execution, which was granted on April 18, 2006. A writ of execution was subsequently issued on August 8, 2006.

On August 24, 2007, Crispin filed a Verified Complaint against Luisito P. Mendiola (respondent), Sheriff III of the MeTC-Br. 20, alleging grave misconduct, manifest partiality, abuse...

Facts:

Background of the Case

Crispin Sarmiento (Crispin) was charged with eight counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 20 (MeTC-Br. 20). On 22 September 2003, he was acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt. However, the trial court amended its decision on 3 February 2004, ordering Crispin to pay the private complainants, spouses Daniel and Blesilda Inciong, P295,000 as actual damages plus 12% legal interest per annum from the filing of the case.

Writ of Execution

After the decision became final and executory, the spouses Inciong filed a motion for a writ of execution, which was granted on 18 April 2006. The writ was issued on 8 August 2006.

Allegations Against the Sheriff

On 12 February 2007, respondent Luisito P. Mendiola, Sheriff III of MeTC-Br. 20, along with a policeman, forcibly took a Mercedes Benz belonging to Crispin's brother, Tirso Sarmiento, without presenting a writ of execution. Crispin claimed the vehicle was not his but his brother's, as evidenced by a Deed of Sale dated 24 January 2007. He argued that the levy was illegal since the property did not belong to the judgment debtor.

Respondent's Defense

Respondent denied the charges, claiming he showed Crispin the Order granting the writ of execution and a Notice of Levy. He also stated that he visited the house of Efren Panganiban, the alleged seller, who confirmed the car was sold to Crispin years ago. Respondent argued he acted in good faith and performed his official duty.

OCA Findings

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent guilty of Simple Misconduct. The OCA noted that the vehicle belonged to Tirso, not Crispin, and that respondent failed to present evidence supporting his claim. The OCA recommended a fine of P10,000, as this was respondent's first offense.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Sheriff's Duty in Execution of Judgments: Sheriffs must strictly adhere to the directives of the court and ensure that only properties belonging to the judgment debtor are levied upon. They must act with diligence and circumspection to avoid prejudicing the rights of third parties.
2. Improper Levy on Third-Party Property: Money judgments are enforceable only against properties of the judgment debtor. Levying on properties of third persons is beyond the sheriff's authority and constitutes misconduct.
3. Good Faith Defense Rejected: Respondent's claim of good faith was dismissed due to his failure to verify ownership and his reliance on unsubstantiated assurances from third parties.
4. Penalty for Simple Misconduct: Under Section 52, B(2), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, Simple Misconduct is punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. Since this was respondent's first offense, the Court imposed a fine of P10,000.

Conclusion:

The Court fined respondent Luisito P. Mendiola P10,000 for Simple Misconduct, with a warning that a repetition of the offense would result in more severe penalties.