Title
Booc vs. Bantuas
Case
A.M. No. P-01-1464
Decision Date
Mar 13, 2001
Sheriff levied corporation’s property for stockholder’s debt, disregarding its separate juridical personality; fined P5,000 for overstepping authority without bad faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-68470)

Charges Against Respondent Sheriff

The affidavit-complaint submitted on August 31, 1999, accused Sheriff Bantuas of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority. It was alleged that despite his awareness of the ownership of the property by the corporation, he proceeded with a Notice of Levy that unjustly claimed rights over the property belonging to the corporation. On July 31, 1995, Booc informed the sheriff of the corporation's ownership and demanded the cancellation of the levy, threatening legal actions if he ignored the request.

Actions Leading to the Dispute

On August 20, 1999, the Five Star Marketing Corporation received a "Notice of Sale on Execution of Real Property" scheduled for public auction on August 31, 1999. To protect its interests, the corporation filed an action for Quieting of Title with RTC, Branch 4 of Iligan City. Bantuas, in his defense, asserted that the levy pertained to Rufino Booc's alleged share in the corporation, relying on documentation indicating that Rufino Booc owned shares of the corporation. He claimed to be acting within his duties according to Section 15, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court regarding the execution of a money judgment.

Counterclaims and Defense

In response, Booc refuted Bantuas' claims, asserting that the trial court had issued a restraining order against the auction of non-party property and that the order was misinterpreted by the sheriff. Evidence was presented showing the trial court's explicit directives that only shares of Rufino Booc should be auctioned, not the property of the corporation itself.

Findings of the Office of the Court Administrator

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Bantuas liable for bad faith, highlighting that he disregarded the warnings from Judge Mangotara and proceeded with an auction in violation of explicit instructions. The OCA's recommendation included re-docketing the case as a regular administrative matter and imposing a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) on the sheriff.

Analysis of Legal Principles

The OCA recognized that Bantuas failed to respect the separate legal identity of the corporation, mistakenly conflating the interests of the stockholder, Rufino Booc, with those of the corporation. Referencing established legal principles, the decision emphasized that a corporation has a distinct identity separate from its stockholders, meaning that a stockhol

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.