A.M. No. 2796-P - Moya vs. Bassig

Case Summary (A.M. No. 2796-P)

Factual Background

Complainants were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Q-16322 seeking abatement of a nuisance, specifically the removal of a fence built alongside a creek by spouses Benjamin Limson and Revelina Limson. Judgment was rendered in favor of complainants on June 23, 1973, ordering the removal of the fence and awarding P5,000.00 as actual damages and P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. No. 53721-R. Thereafter, a writ of execution was issued on January 23, 1979 for the removal of the fence and for the collection of the money judgment of P10,000.00 plus costs.

A levy on personal properties was effected on April 2, 1979, and a public auction sale was scheduled for January 19, 1981. Complainants sent Edmundo Quijano as their representative in the scheduled sale, and he made a bid of P7,500.00 for the personal properties. The sale did not proceed because the judgment debtors allegedly delivered to Bassig a check for P5,000.00 as partial payment, with a promise to pay the balance the following Saturday. The check was delivered to complainants, but the judgment debtors did not pay the remaining balance. Instead, they filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA G.R. No. 11954-P. On January 23, 1981, the Court of Appeals restrained enforcement of the writ of execution.

Even before the scheduled sale on January 19, 1981, the judgment debtors had asked the trial court not to enforce its judgment on the abatement of the fence, contending that the fence had already been destroyed in 1977, and that the fence to be removed had allegedly been erected in 1977. The trial court denied those motions, with the last order issued on January 5, 1981. The judgment debtors then filed their notice of appeal on January 13, 1981. A last-minute effort to suspend the sale based on the notice of appeal was denied on January 20, 1981. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals dismissed the judgment debtors’ certiorari petition on October 6, 1981 and set aside its restraining order.

After the dismissal of CA G.R. No. 11954-P, complainants asked Bassig to proceed with the sale through three separate letters dated October 20, October 29, and November 11, 1981. As Bassig did not act, complainants threatened to file an administrative suit on March 15, 1982. Bassig then set the sale for March 26, 1982, but on March 25, 1982, complainants received a letter from Bassig dated March 20, 1982, stating that the sale could not be pushed through because the appeal of the judgment debtors was pending before the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. No. 68550.

Respondent’s Explanation and the Investigation Findings

In his comment dated May 6, 1982, Bassig admitted that his refusal to enforce the sale was based on the pendency of the judgment debtors’ appeal from the trial court’s order dated January 5, 1981, docketed as CA G.R. No. 68550. Bassig claimed he had been informed by Atty. Jose Francisco on March 17, 1982 that he should not execute the judgment due to the appeal and that, according to that advice, the amount of execution had no more legal effect.

The antecedent facts were found to be not disputed. The inquest judge found Bassig guilty of dereliction. The Court quoted and affirmed the reasons of the investigating judge, which identified deficiencies in Bassig’s approach to execution after the Court of Appeals had set aside the restraining order. The investigating judge held that Bassig’s actions did not conform to the controlling rules governing execution sales and the effect of partial payment.

The Parties’ Contentions

Complainants maintained that Bassig unjustifiably failed to proceed with the public auction sale after the appellate restraint was lifted and after they had made repeated demands. They also asserted that Bassig had ignored their requests to proceed with execution and had not offered any adequate explanation for the omission until the filing of the administrative complaint.

Bassig, for his part, defended his inaction by attributing it to the pendency of CA G.R. No. 68550, reasoning that execution could not lawfully proceed while the appeal was pending. He further relied on advice from counsel and portrayed the execution amount as having no continuing legal effect during that appellate stage.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The investigating judge relied on Rule 39, Rules of Court, emphasizing that the sale of property on execution could be prevented only by payment of the amount required by the writ and the costs incurred (Sec. 20, Rule 39). It was held that the P5,000.00 payment made by the judgment debtors as partial payment did not warrant the indefinite cancellation of the sale. Further, the rules on adjournment were applied: the sale may be adjourned only by written consent of the debtor and creditor (Sec. 24, Rule 39). The investigating judge concluded that Bassig should have secured written consent from both parties to cancel the January 19, 1981 sale and then reset it to another day. As characterized in the findings, the proceedings had instead been abandoned without the required procedural follow-through.

The investigating judge also found that Bassig ignored complainants’ requests to proceed after the Court of Appeals had dismissed CA G.R. No. 11954 and set aside its restraining order. It was noted that Bassig did not offer any explanation for the omission until the administrative complaint was filed. The investigating judge rejected Bassig’s reliance on the pendency of CA G.R. No. 68550 as an obstacle to proceeding with the sale, explaining that the appeal concerned the removal of the fence rather than the money judgment. In addition, the investigating judge reasoned that even assuming Bassig harbored doubts, he should have submitted even a partial return to the trial court and sought clarification regarding the propriety of proceeding with the sale.

The Court further addressed the practical realities of execution. It observed that execution is the most difficult phase of judicial proceedings, and therefore requires the officers charged with implementation to act with considerable dispatch in the absence of a restraining order. Otherwise, court decisions, orders, or processes would become futile. The Court thus treated Bassig’s inaction as undermining the effective enforcement of the prevailing party’s rights.

In evaluating Bassig’s defenses, the Court acknowledged that the case history involved multiple litigations, including an elevation of the original judgment from the trial court to the Court of Appeals and even to the Supreme Court, and later resort to certiorari and review involving the writ of execution. Still, it held that Bassig, being only a deputy sheriff, should have sought clarification from the trial court that issued the writ if he had any genuine doubt about his capacity to act. This was deemed necessary to avoid any suspicion that he was favoring the judgment deb

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 2796-P)

The case involved an administrative complaint filed by Jose L. Moya and Reynaldo B. Perez against Renato A. Bassig, then Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XVII, Quezon City (later identified in the decision as Regional Trial Court, NCR, Branch LXXXVII, Quezon City).
The complainants accused Bassig of violating the Rules of Court and judicial orders, committing dereliction of duty, and acting with abuse of authority for failing to sell at public auction personal properties levied under a writ of execution.
The Supreme Court decided the matter en banc per curiam, treating it as an administrative case for misconduct in the performance of official duties.
The Court imposed the ultimate penalty after finding Bassig guilty of dereliction.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Jose L. Moya and Reynaldo B. Perez initiated the administrative action against Renato A. Bassig.
The Court acted on the complaint by issuing an Office of the Court Administrator directive that required Bassig to submit a comment.
Bassig submitted his comment/explanation on May 6, 1982.
After an initial evaluation, the Court referred the case for investigation, report, and recommendation to Hon. Ernani Cruz Pano, Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City.
Judge Pano found Bassig guilty of dereliction, and the Court adopted and quoted the investigating judge’s reasons.
The Court’s disposition ordered Bassig’s separation from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, with costs.
Melencio-Herrera, J. took no part in the resolution, while the remaining members concurred.

Key Factual Allegations

The administrative charges arose from Bassig’s failure to proceed with a public auction sale of personal properties levied under a writ of execution in Civil Case No. Q-16322.
The underlying civil case in Civil Case No. Q-16322 was titled: “Reynaldo B. Perez, et al. versus Benjamin Limson, et al.”
The complainants were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Q-16322 and obtained a judgment on June 23, 1973 ordering the removal of a fence alongside a creek and awarding P5,000.00 as actual damages and P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. No. 53721-R, and a writ of execution issued on January 23, 1979 for the removal of the fence and collection of the money judgment totaling P10,000.00 plus costs.
A levy on personal properties occurred on April 2, 1979, and the auction sale was scheduled for January 19, 1981.
The complainants sent Edmundo Quijano as their representative, who made a bid of P7,500.00 for the personal properties.
The sale did not proceed because the judgment debtors, the Limsons, delivered to Bassig a check for P5,000.00 as partial payment with a promise to pay the balance the following Saturday.
The check was delivered to the complainants, and the Limsons did not pay the balance.
Instead, the Limsons filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA G.R. No. 11954-P, and the Court of Appeals restrained enforcement of the writ of execution on January 23, 1981.
Even before the scheduled sale on January 19, 1981, the Limsons had asked the trial court not to enforce the judgment on the fence abatement, alleging factual circumstances about the fence’s destruction and re-erection.
The trial court denied the Limsons’ requests, issuing its last order on January 5, 1981, after which the Limsons filed a notice of appeal on January 13, 1981.
A last-minute effort to suspend the sale based on the filing of the notice of appeal was denied by the trial court on January 20, 1981.
The Court of Appeals later dismissed the Limsons’ certiorari petition on October 6, 1981 and set aside its restraining order.
The complainants requested Bassig to proceed with the sale through letters dated October 20, October 29, and November 11, 1981.
When no action followed, complainants threatened an administrative suit on March 15, 1982, after which Bassig set the sale for March 26, 1982.
On March 25, 1982, Bassig informed the complainants via a letter dated March 20, 1982 that the sale could not proceed because the Limsons’ appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. No. 68550.
The facts were treated as undisputed by the investigating judge and the Court.

Defense and Explanation Offered

Bassig’s comment dated May 6, 1982 centered on the alleged pendency of the Limsons’ appeal in CA G.R. No. 68550.
Bassig asserted that, due to the pendency of the appeal from the trial court’s January 5, 1981 order, he could not enforce the judgment without committing malfeasance.
Bassig claimed that he received information about the appeal and was advised by counsel, identified as Atty. Jose Francisco, not to execute the judgment.
Bassig further claimed that, according to the advice he received, the amount of execution allegedly no longer had legal effect.

Findings of the Investigating Judge

Judge Pano found Bassig guilty of dereliction in the performance of official duties.
T