Title
Lirio vs. Ramos
Case
A.M. No. P-96-1227 Formerly
Decision Date
Oct 11, 1996
Sheriff attached wrong properties exceeding court-ordered value, violating rules; found guilty of neglect, suspended for one month.
sheriff
grave misconduct
neglect of duty

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-96-1227 Formerly)

Parties, Setting, and Antecedent Civil Case

The administrative dispute traced its origin to a civil action for Specific Performance and Damages with Consignation, Preliminary Attachment and Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order filed on 30 March 1995 by one Lilia T. Aaron before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 66, docketed as Civil Case No. 95-521. In that case, on 6 April 1995, after an ex-parte hearing, the RTC issued an order finding a ground for preliminary attachment based on a perceived fraud in contracting the obligation. The RTC ordered the issuance of a preliminary writ of attachment for the attachment of defendants’ property valued at P11,382,000.00, conditioned on the plaintiff’s posting of a bond in the amount of P1,000,000.00, and it also temporarily enjoined the defendants, through a status-quo measure, from disposing or encumbering the house and lot covered by TCT No. 149433.

Issuance of the Writ and the Sheriff’s Levy

On 10 April 1995, after Aaron posted the required bond, the RTC issued the writ of preliminary attachment. The writ stated that the claim of Aaron was P11,382,000.00 and commanded the sheriff to attach the defendants’ “estate, real and personal” to the value of the demand and costs, and to safely keep the same according to the Rules of Court, unless the defendants provided the required security. On 11 April 1995, respondent Ramos filed with the Register of Deeds of Makati City a Notice of Attachment and/or Levy of Real Properties. He informed the registrar of the levy upon the rights, claims, shares, interests, and participation of the defendants over properties covered by TCT Nos. 183949 and 199480, which the complainant described as a residential house and lot and a vacant residential lot, respectively. The levy also extended to the complainants’ interest in the Ayala Alabang Homeowners Association. Respondent did not levy on the property covered by TCT No. 149433, because, according to his explanation, Aaron told him not to attach it since it had already been covered by the restraining order issued by the RTC.

Contested Execution: Motion to Exclude and Claim of Contempt

The complainant moved to exclude the attached property and to cite the respondent in contempt of court. The motion was amended to stress that respondent had not attached the property covered by TCT No. 149433, but instead attached the properties covered by TCT Nos. 183949 and 199480. The complainant invoked Gruenberg vs. Court of Appeals, and argued that only the property under litigation should have been attached. In an order dated 24 May 1995, the RTC granted the motion to exclude and ordered attachment of the house and lot covered by TCT No. 149433, whose value the court found sufficient to cover the claim of Aaron. Nevertheless, the RTC denied the motion to hold the sheriff in contempt. After denial of a motion for reconsideration, Aaron filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 37489. On 30 June 1995, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.

Court of Appeals Ruling on Alleged Disobedience

The Court of Appeals held that the sheriff’s levy of properties under TCT Nos. 183949 and 199480 instead of TCT No. 149433 was contrary to the RTC’s Order of 6 April 1995, which—according to that court—was limited to the house and lot covered by TCT 149433 located at Apo Street and valued at P11,382,000.00. The Court of Appeals reasoned that a sheriff is an officer of the court and lacks authority to act beyond the order’s terms, and that by levying other properties, the sheriff effectively arrogated judicial powers. It further emphasized that Section 5 of Rule 57 required execution of the attachment order as issued, and that the sheriff went beyond the order’s limitation, an act characterized as contemptuous in character. The Court of Appeals also observed that the sheriff allegedly obeyed the petitioner’s instruction rather than the RTC’s directive.

Administrative Complaint and Respondent’s Comment

In view of the Court of Appeals’ disposition, the complainant filed the administrative complaint. In his Comment, the respondent admitted that he levied on attachment the complainant’s personal and real properties, including stock interest in the Ayala Alabang Homeowners Association and the lots covered by TCT Nos. 183949 and 199480, together with improvements. He justified his conduct by stating that it was common practice for the plaintiff to supply information on the properties to be attached. He also asserted that the RTC’s Order of 6 April 1995 did not specifically order that attachment be limited to the property under TCT No. 149433. He expressed the impression that, since temporary restraining order protection already applied to TCT 149433, attachment may properly be levied on other properties. He further argued that the lots covered by TCT Nos. 183949 and 199480 had an aggregate market value of P3,489,430.00 based on tax declarations, and not the P30 million claimed by the complainant. Finally, he maintained that he committed no misconduct.

Recommended Administrative Sanction and the Court’s Evaluation

The parties later agreed to submit the matter for decision based on the pleadings. In a memorandum dated 27 February 1996, Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis recommended only a fine equivalent to one-month salary, warning that similar acts in the future should be dealt with more severely. The recommendation drew from findings that respondent either showed extreme naivety or, more seriously, a deceptive spirit in persisting with the view that he had discretion to attach other properties based on ready-made directive language in the sheriff’s forms, and in ignoring the ministerial nature of a sheriff’s duties. The memorandum noted that the sheriff is not the judge and cannot add or subtract from the contents of the attachment order. However, the Court declined to adopt the recommendation fully because the trial court had denied the motion for contempt and the record did not show that the complainant had sought reconsideration or appeal, and also because the sheriff was not a party in CA-G.R. SP No. 37489 and therefore could not be faulted for failing to interpose a plea in mitigation there.

The Court’s Core Legal Issue and Its Factual Reassessment

The Court addressed the administrative liability not by simply adopting the contempt framing of the Court of Appeals, but by evaluating whether respondent’s actions showed neglect or dereliction of duty or refusal to perform official duty under the governing procedural rules on attachment. The Court recognized that respondent might not have been entirely wrong in levying property other than that involved in Civil Case No. 95-521, because the RTC’s Order of 6 April 1995 and the writ of preliminary attachment directed attachment of “defendants property” with a value of P11,382,000.00, more or less, and required attachment of the defendants’ “estate, real and personal” within the value of the demand. The Court treated these directives as setting the limitation: the sheriff could attach real and personal properties to the extent of the claimed amount fixed at P11,382,000.00, and the only limit to his determination was that amount, not necessarily the identity of a single parcel.

Nevertheless, the Court distinguished the attachment of other properties from the respondent’s administrative misconduct. It held that the administrative liability could not lie in levying property other than the one specially enjoined from disposition, because the RTC had not declared the attachment of other properties improper at the time the sheriff made the levy. Rather, the administrative fault lay in respondent’s failure to faithfully comply with the rule that the attachment should be executed only to the extent sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand as fixed in the attachment order.

Governing Rules: Manner, Extent, Recording, and Return of Attachment

The Court invoked Section 5, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the officer executing the order must attach, without delay, all properties of the party against whom the order is issued in the province not exempt from execution, or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand, unless the debtor makes the required deposit or counter-bond. The Court also cited Section 7, Rule 57, governing the manner of attachment and recording of real and personal property, including the requirement that for real property standing upon registrar records, the sheriff must file with the registrar of deeds a copy of the order, with a description of the property attached, and a notice stating it is attached, with proper indexing requirements when certificates of title are involved. The Court further referenced Section 6, Rule 57 on officers’ return, which requires that immediately after executing the order, the officer must make a return to the clerk or judge with a full statement of proceedings and a complete inventory of the properties attached, and must also serve copies of any counter-bond.

The Court found that respondent did not exert effort to determine whether the properties attached were limited to the extent sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand of P11,382,000.00. It rejected his defense based on later-acquired tax declarations indicating a low aggregate value. The Court treated this explanation as a delayed afterthought because the tax declarations were obtained only on 20 October 1995. It concluded that respondent never considered the assessed or market value of the properties at the time of the levy. It also found that respondent did not strictly comply with the procedural requirements for attachment. Specifically, the notice of levy addressed to the Registrar of De

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms