A.M. No. P-11-2968 - Son vs. Leyva

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-11-2968)

Factual Background

Complainant alleged that in Civil Case No. 1218-A, entitled “Mamerto Sibulo, Jr. vs. Ricardo Mendoza and Baclaran Marketing Inc.,” the RTC Branch 74, Antipolo City, had initially dismissed the complaint against BMC, but the Court of Appeals reversed that dismissal by its Decision dated May 9, 2005. A writ of execution issued January 16, 2006 and an order dated February 23, 2006 directed levy on BMC’s properties to satisfy a money judgment of P765,159.55. Respondent executed the writ and on April 17, 2006 sold BMC’s real property under TCT No. 34587 at public auction. The subject property was a prime Quirino Avenue lot in Paranaque City with an assessed value of P33,395,000.00 (as of April 2008) and an alleged market value of P19,890,000.00 at the time of the auction.

Complainant’s Allegations

Complainant charged respondent with grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for: failing to demand immediate cash payment of the judgment before levying; failing to levy on personal properties before levying on real property; making an excessive levy disproportionate to the judgment; failing to give proper notice and to leave copies of orders with occupants; issuing a Certificate of Sale on the day of auction yet filing the Sheriff’s Report only nine months later; and violating various provisions of the Rules of Court including Section 15(d), Rule 39, Section 9(b), Rule 39 in relation to Section 7(a), Rule 57, and Section 14, Rule 39.

Respondent’s Position

Respondent denied culpability and maintained that he performed his ministerial duty in executing the writ and the court order. He asserted that he attempted service of the notice of levy, writ of execution and order on BMC and its counsel by sending documents on March 13 and March 21, 2006, but that those mailings were returned with notations that the company did not exist or had moved. He explained that notices of sale were sent by courier and published in the Truth Seekers News, and that a certificate of posting and affidavit of publication were received on March 24, 2006, after which he proceeded to auction. Respondent contended that BMC’s failure to inform the court of its new address rendered personal demand and levy on personal properties impracticable, and that he lacked authority to determine the market value of the levied property.

Procedural History

The Office of the Court Administrator initially recommended that the Letter Complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter. The Court directed the parties to state whether they would submit the case on the pleadings or request a hearing; complainant sought a formal hearing while respondent was willing to submit on the pleadings. The OCA later recommended a formal hearing and referred the matter to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Antipolo City for investigation, report and recommendation. The Investigating Judge submitted a Report finding substantial evidence of procedural violations, and the OCA issued its Report and Recommendation to the Supreme Court adopting the Investigating Judge’s findings but modifying the ancillary penalty recommendations.

Investigating Judge’s Findings

The Investigating Judge found respondent liable for failing to make a formal demand for payment and computation of lawful fees, for levying on real property instead of first exhausting personal properties, and for making an excessive levy in violation of Section 9, Rule 39. The Investigating Judge concluded that respondent committed gross neglect of duty and recommended suspension for six months and one day without pay plus a fine of P10,000.00, noting jurisprudence that a sheriff who failed to limit levies to the amount called for in the writ is guilty of misconduct.

OCA Recommendation

The OCA agreed that respondent was guilty of gross neglect of duty for failing to follow mandatory execution procedures and for making an excessive levy, and recommended suspension for six months and one day without pay with a stern warning. The OCA declined to impose the Investigating Judge’s suggested fine in addition to suspension, explaining that under Rule 10, Section 47 (as cited) and the relevant administrative rules a fine is imposed in lieu of, not in addition to, suspension in modifying circumstances.

Issues Presented

The controlling issues were whether respondent violated the procedural mandates of executing a money judgment in Section 9, Rule 39 and the service requirements in Rule 13; whether the levy and sale were excessive; whether respondent’s service via private courier complied with the modes of service prescribed by the Rules of Court; and what penalty, if any, should be imposed given respondent’s service record and attendant circumstances.

Ruling of the Court

The Court adopted the OCA’s Report and Recommendation and found respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty and gross incompetence in the performance of official duties. The Court held that respondent violated the procedural sequence mandated by Section 9, Rule 39 by not demanding immediate cash payment, by not levying on personal properties before levying on real property, and by selling more property than necessary to satisfy the judgment. The Court further found improper service of notices in violation of Rule 13 because respondent used a private courier (LBC) without justification and did not explain why personal service or registered mail was impracticable.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reasoned that Section 9, Rule 39 prescribes a clear sequence: first a demand for immediate cash payment; second, if payment is not made, levy on personal properties; and third, levy on real properties only if personal properties are insufficient. The Court emphasized that the executing officer’s duty in implementing writs is ministerial and admits no discretion where the rule is explicit. The Court cited Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, and Section 11 of Rule 13 to underline the priorities in modes of service and held that resort to private courier required a written explanation which respondent did not provide. On excessiveness, the Court observed that the judgment debt was P765,159.55 while the levied property had a fair market value of P19,890,000.00, and that Section 9, Rule 39 requires selling only so much of the property as is sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees, which obligated the sheriff to de

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-11-2968)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Solomon Son filed an administrative Letter Complaint on October 28, 2010 as Finance and Operations Manager of Baclaran Marketing Corporation (BMC).
Rolando C. Leyva was the respondent serving as Sheriff IV of RTC Branch 74, Antipolo City.
The complaint was re-docketed as a regular administrative matter by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and a formal hearing was ordered by the Court.
An Investigating Judge of the RTC of Antipolo City submitted a Report and Recommendation on May 23, 2014 that found respondent liable.
The OCA issued its Recommendation on April 25, 2015 and the Supreme Court resolved the matter by Decision adopting the OCA Report and Recommendation.

Key Factual Allegations

Complainant alleged that respondent levied and sold at public auction BMC’s real property under TCT No. 34587 to satisfy a money judgment of PHP 765,159.55 in Civil Case No. 1218-A.
The levied property had an assessed value of PHP 33,395,000.00 as of April 2008 and a market value of PHP 19,890,000.00 at the time of auction.
The auction sale occurred on April 17, 2006 and a Certificate of Sale was issued by respondent on the same day.
Complainant alleged respondent failed to demand immediate cash payment, failed to levy on personal property first, effected an excessive levy, improperly served notices, and delayed filing the Sheriff’s Report until January 17, 2007.

Issues Presented

Whether respondent violated the mandatory procedures for the execution of judgments for money under Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Whether respondent effected excessive levy by selling property whose value far exceeded the judgment debt.
Whether respondent improperly served notices in violation of Rule 13, Rules of Court, particularly Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11.
What administrative penalty, if any, is appropriate for respondent’s conduct.

Parties' Contentions

Complainant contended respondent failed to demand cash payment, failed to levy personal properties first, made an excessive levy, and did not properly serve notices or promptly return his act.
Respondent contended he implemented a writ of execution dated January 16, 2006 and an Order dated February 23, 2006, that notices were sent but returned unserved, that publication and posting were done, and that BMC’s address was unknown making personal service futile.
Respondent also argued that he had no authority to determine whether the levied real property was of greater value than the judgment debt or whether BMC still conducted business on the property.

Applicable Law

Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court prescribes immediate demand for cash payment, the option of the judgment obligor to select property for levy, the obligation to levy on personal property first, and the directive to sell only that portion of property sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees.
Rule 13, Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 of the Rules of Court govern modes of service, personal service, service by registered mail, substituted service when address is unknown, and priorities in modes of service.
Canon IV, Section 6 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel requires expeditious enforcement of court rules and orders within the limits of authority.
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule 10 provides disciplinary standards for gross neglect and