A.M. No. R-711-P - Spouses Lim vs. Guasch

Complainants: Spouses Alfonso Aquino Lim and Dhida Labiran-Lim.
Respondent: Deputy Sheriff Oscar Guasch of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XLII, Manila.

The spouses filed a Joint Complaint-Affidavit charging the respondent with illegal exaction, causing undue injuries, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence.
In connection with Civil Case No. 85-31514, which had a writ of execution ordering the payment of P17,500.00 as damages, the complainants alleged that:

The respondent demanded P300.00 for “guards fees” without issuing a receipt.
He also solicited an additional P400.00 for “representation, transportation and service expenses” and similarly failed to issue a receipt.

The writ of execution led to the levying of personal property (comprising a living room set, a G.E. radio-phonograph, and a 17" Sony color television set) in custodia legis and the setting of a date for an auction sale.
On the scheduled auction day:

Complainants, along with other interested bidders, arrived at the auction site at the defendants’ residence and waited for nearly four (4) hours.
The respondent failed to appear at the scheduled time (which was originally set for 10:00 a.m.), causing the auction sale not to take place as planned.
Later in the day, around 11:45 a.m., the property was removed from the auction site by the defendants and other persons, loaded onto a motor vehicle, and driven away.

On the reset date for the auction sale, the complainants found the defendants’ house padlocked and uninhabited.
Prior to the auction sale, a third-party claim for ownership of the levied property was also received by the complainants, prompting them to post an indemnity bond along with the premium.

The respondent asserted that he did not demand any money from the complainants and maintained that there was no legal basis to charge fees not prescribed by law.
He claimed to have arrived at the auction site at about 9:55 a.m. on the scheduled day, stating that the complainants themselves did not show up.
He explained that he and his assistant left the premises after waiting and subsequently returned to their office, reiterating that complainants then failed to contact them.
The respondent contended that the rescheduled auction sale was a result of practical difficulties, including not being informed of the complainants’ intended bid amount, and alleged that the complainants were seeking to harass him due to personal grievances related to her desire for retribution against the defendant in the separate civil case.

The case was referred to Judge Rebecca G. Salvador of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, for investigation, during which both parties were heard and evidence was presented.
The Investigating Judge’s Report and Recommendation concluded that:

The complainants had amply established, by substantial evidence, their accusations against the respondent.
The respondent’s denials were characterized as “flimsy” and “unworthy of credence” when compared to the positive testimony and actions of the complainants (including the prompt posting of an indemnity bond and a written request by complainant Dhida Labiran to proceed with the auction at 10:00 a.m.).
Under Section 7, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, the fees collected by the respondent were not among those prescribed and authorized, thereby underscoring the improper nature of his actions.

Whether the respondent unlawfully exacted fees that were not authorized by the applicable rules, specifically under Section 7, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the acts of the respondent, including his non-appearance at the scheduled auction sale and the failure to secure the levied property, constitute illegal exaction, gross negligence, and dereliction of duty.
Whether the evidence presented by the complainants suffices to establish the respondent’s dishonesty, grave misconduct, and gross inexcusable negligence in the performance of his duties.
Whether the misconduct of the respondent, given the circumstances and the established facts, justifies his dismissal from service with the forfeiture of his retirement privileges and benefits.