Case Digest (A.M. No. P-02-1568)
Facts:
Criste A. Ta-Octa v. Sheriff IV Winston T. Eguia, Sheriff IV Edwin G. Torres, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, Branch 26 and Branch 38, A.M. No. P-02-1568 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 00-1015-P), April 25, 2002, Supreme Court Third Division, Vitug, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Criste Ta-Octa filed an administrative complaint dated 20 March 2000 with the Office of the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, charging Sheriff IV Winston T. Eguia and Sheriff IV Edwin G. Torres with grave abuse of authority in connection with an extrajudicial foreclosure of chattel mortgage instituted by AC (Iloilo) Lenders, Inc. The chattel mortgage, executed 2 July 1999, covered one motor vehicle (FUSO Fighter Tanker, Motor No. 6D14-563562, Serial FK335J-530111, Plate FEA-691).
Ta-Octa alleged that the foreclosure petition was served the same day it was filed with the Sheriff’s Office without any raffle being conducted by the Executive Judge’s office and without trial court approval; that no prior notice or demand was made before taking possession of the vehicle; that respondents failed to issue receipts for the vehicle accessories; that the sheriffs hid the vehicle instead of placing it at the Hall of Justice; and that respondents made erasures in the foreclosure book at the Office of the Clerk of Court.
Respondents answered, admitting the petition was immediately served without a raffle because AC Lenders feared the complainant might abscond and because the vehicle was found at a relative’s house; they denied the erasures and, to rebut that charge, submitted affidavits of Clerk of Court employees Josephine Marie Lagura and Jonalyn Gasataya, who explained that on 22 February 2000 a notarial foreclosure incident filed by the Rural Bank of Guimbal had been erroneously docketed in the Sheriff’s Foreclosure Book and that erasures/entries were the result of clerical correction made in good faith.
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 6 (30 June 1975), Executive Judge Tito A. Gustilo conducted an investigation and, in a 13 October 2000 report, found respondents guilty of violating Administrative Circular No. 3-98 and Administrative Order No. 3 (which mandates raffling of extrajudicial foreclosure cases), and recommended one month suspension without pay...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondents violate the mandated raffling and other procedures for extrajudicial foreclosure under A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 (and related administrative rules)?
- Were respondents’ asserted reasons (fear that the mortgagor would abscond; recovery of the vehicle at a relative’s house; clerical errors in docketing) a valid excuse for not complying with the raffling procedure?
- What disciplinary sanction is...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)