Case Digest (A.M. No. P-11-2968)
Facts:
This is A.M. No. P-11-2968 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3535-P], promulgated November 28, 2019, First Division, Lazaro-Javier, J., writing for the Court. The complainant is Solomon Son, Finance and Operations Manager of Baclaran Marketing Corporation (BMC); the respondent is Rolando C. Leyva, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 74, Antipolo City.In Civil Case No. 1218-A (Mamerto Sibulo, Jr. v. Ricardo Mendoza and Baclaran Marketing Inc.), the RTC Branch 74 originally dismissed the complaint against BMC. Sibulo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) under CA‑G.R. CV No. 17936 without notifying BMC; the CA reversed the RTC in a decision dated May 9, 2005, which became final as BMC was unaware of the appeal. A writ of execution dated January 16, 2006 and an Order dated February 23, 2006 issued for satisfaction of the money judgment of P765,159.55.
On April 17, 2006 respondent proceeded to levy and immediately sell at public auction BMC’s real property covered by TCT No. 34587, a prime Quirino Avenue, Parañaque City parcel. At the time of auction the property’s market value was alleged to be P19,890,000.00 (assessed value P33,395,000.00 as of April 2008), substantially exceeding the judgment amount. Complainant Son filed an administrative Letter Complaint (Oct. 28, 2010) charging respondent with grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law, and conduct prejudicial to the service for (a) failing to demand immediate payment in cash before levy; (b) not levying personal properties first; (c) serving notices improperly; (d) making an excessive levy; and (e) delaying his sheriff’s return.
Respondent denied wrongdoing, asserting he implemented the writ and order, attempted service on BMC and its counsel (copies allegedly returned “to sender” or noted “moved out”), published the notice, received certificates of posting and publication, and therefore proceeded with sale; he explained BMC changed address and that it was beyond his authority to determine the property’s value. The OCA re‑docketed the complaint as an administrative case and, after a mix of pleadings and a formal hearing, referred it for investigation. The Investigating Judge (Report dated May 23, 2014) found respondent liable for failing to demand payment, for levying real property without exhausting personal property, and for excessive levy, and recommended suspension and a P10,000 fine...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent commit gross neglect of duty and gross incompetence by failing to follow the procedures for execution of money judgments and for service of notices (i.e., failure to demand cash payment, failure to levy personal properties first, improper service, and excessive levy)?
- If liable, what is the proper penalty...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)