Morales vs. Tarongoy

A sheriff who demands unauthorized fees from a judgment creditor without court-approved Bill of Costs and levies execution on properties heavily encumbered beyond the judgment value—while ignoring available unencumbered assets—commits grave misconduct warranting dismissal from service, especially when aggravated by defiance of court orders and prior administrative sanctions for negligence.

The case arose from the execution of a final judgment of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in a labor dispute entitled "Felicidad V. Morales vs. Ever Cinema Theatre," wherein the employer was ordered to pay complainant Morales and a fellow employee the sum of P190,254.00. When the judgment obligor evaded payment, the Labor Arbiter issued an alias writ of execution directed to the Provincial Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur, leading to the administrative complaint against the Deputy Sheriff for his conduct during the execution process.

• On 27 January 1992, the NLRC rendered a decision in Case No. RAB VII-0584-88 ("Felicidad V. Morales vs. Ever Cinema Theatre") ordering the employer to pay complainant and a fellow employee the amount of P190,254.00.
• The judgment obligor managed to evade payment, prompting Labor Arbiter Dominador Almirante to issue an alias writ of execution ordering the Provincial Sheriff of the RTC of Pagadian City to collect the sum or satisfy the judgment by levying movable and immovable property not exempt from execution.
• Complainant personally handcarried the writ of execution to Pagadian City.
• Respondent Deputy Sheriff demanded P15,000.00 as fee for the implementation of the writ.
• Complainant, having no cash on hand at the time and eager to have the writ promptly effected, borrowed a portion of the sum demanded and gave it to the Sheriff.
• Respondent thereupon levied two parcels of real property owned by the employer (TCT No. 9844 and TCT No. 136736).
• The levied properties were mortgaged with Metrobank for P2,000,000.00 and with PNB for P7,000,000.00, respectively.
• After required publication and three days before the scheduled auction sale, respondent informed complainant that she would have to put up a bond because the properties levied were mortgaged.
• Complainant questioned respondent for levying on mortgaged assets when there were eleven other parcels of land registered in the employer's name which were not similarly encumbered.
• Respondent had previously been found guilty of negligence in A.M. P-90-468 (resolution dated 13 June 1994) and fined an amount equivalent to a month's salary with a warning that future infractions would be dealt with severely.

• Complainant charged respondent with Grave Misconduct and Violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for his actions in executing the NLRC judgment.
• Complainant alleged that respondent demanded and received P15,000.00 as fee for implementing the writ without prior court approval through a Bill of Costs.
• Complainant argued that respondent committed grave misconduct by levying on two mortgaged properties worth millions to satisfy a P190,254.00 judgment, while ignoring eleven other unencumbered parcels of land owned by the employer.
• Complainant asserted that respondent failed to discharge his duties with prudence, caution and attention by failing to verify the value of the real property and check whether they were free from liens or encumbrances before levy.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether respondent's failure to file a comment or answer despite being duly served with two Court resolutions constitutes defiance warranting disciplinary action and deemed admission of the charges.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether demanding unauthorized sheriff's fees from a judgment creditor constitutes grave misconduct and/or violation of RA 3019.
  • Whether levying execution on heavily mortgaged properties (exceeding the judgment debt) while ignoring available unencumbered properties constitutes grave misconduct.
  • Whether dismissal from service is the appropriate penalty considering respondent's previous administrative record for negligence.

• Procedural:
  • The Court held that respondent's failure to comply with two Court resolutions requiring him to submit his comment, despite proof that he personally received the first resolution and that the second was received by his authorized agent, constitutes defiance that cannot be countenanced.
  • The Court ruled that with his actuations, respondent is deemed to have admitted the charges against him.
  • The Court found that respondent's continued disregard of Court resolutions is not only indicative of guilt but is also plain defiance.
• Substantive:
  • The Court found respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct and ordered his DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all benefits, including leave credits and retirement benefits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or service of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
  • The Court held that while sheriffs are allowed to collect fees under the law, they must require the prevailing party to submit to the court for approval the amount necessary (Bill of Costs) to enforce the writ; demanding fees without such approval is improper and constitutes grave misconduct.
  • The Court ruled that levying on properties mortgaged for P2,000,000.00 and P7,000,000.00 to satisfy a P190,000.00 judgment was improper; respondent should have verified the market value and checked for liens, as a levy is useless if the market value would only cover the mortgage loan.
  • The Court considered respondent's previous finding of negligence in A.M. P-90-468 as an aggravating circumstance warranting the supreme penalty of dismissal rather than the recommended three-month suspension.

• Deemed Admission Rule in Administrative Proceedings — In administrative disciplinary cases, a respondent's failure to file an answer or comment despite due notice and opportunity to be heard constitutes a waiver of the right to present evidence and is deemed an admission of the charges levied against him.
• Duty of Sheriff in Execution of Judgments — A sheriff has the duty to verify the value of real property before levy and check whether the same is free from liens or encumbrances; levying on heavily mortgaged properties where the mortgage exceeds the judgment debt renders the levy useless and constitutes grave misconduct.
• Proper Collection of Sheriff's Fees — Sheriffs must require the prevailing party to submit a Bill of Costs to the court for approval before collecting fees for the implementation of writs; unauthorized demand and collection of fees constitute grave misconduct and possible violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
• Aggravating Circumstances in Administrative Discipline — Prior administrative findings of negligence or misconduct against a court employee constitute aggravating circumstances that justify the imposition of the supreme penalty of dismissal.

• "With his actuations, he is deemed to have admitted the charges."
• "Respondent should have verified the value of the real property levied and checked whether or not the same were free from any liens or encumbrances. If the market value of these real estate would only cover the mortgage loan, then the levy is useless."
• "More than anything else, however, respondent Sheriff has continued to disregard the Court's resolutions, aforementioned, which not only can be indicative of guilt but is also a plain defiance that cannot be countenanced."
• "All considered, the Court is constrained to order the dismissal of respondent Sheriff from the service."

• A.M. P-90-468 — Cited as prior administrative case where respondent was found guilty of negligence and fined one month's salary with a warning, considered as an aggravating circumstance justifying dismissal in the instant case.

• Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Cited as the law allegedly violated by respondent in demanding unauthorized fees; specifically pertains to soliciting or accepting gifts or benefits in the course of official duties.
• Rules of Court provisions on Execution and Sheriff's Fees — Referenced regarding the proper procedure for collecting sheriff's fees through a Bill of Costs approved by the court before implementation of writs.