Morales vs. Tarongoy

A sheriff's duty in executing a writ demands prudence, diligence, and strict adherence to procedure, including the verification of property encumbrances and the avoidance of unauthorized exactions. Failure to discharge these duties, compounded by a defiant disregard for the lawful orders of the Court, constitutes grave misconduct warranting dismissal from service.

Felicidad V. Morales obtained a final and executory decision from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against her employer for a sum of money. To enforce the judgment, an alias writ of execution was issued and directed to the Provincial Sheriff of Pagadian City. Deputy Sheriff Julio G. Tarongoy was tasked with its implementation. Morales alleged that Tarongoy demanded and received P15,000.00 from her as a fee for implementing the writ. He then levied on two parcels of land owned by the employer, which were later discovered to be heavily mortgaged. Morales questioned this levy, noting the existence of other unencumbered properties. Tarongoy failed to respond to two Supreme Court resolutions requiring him to comment on Morales' administrative complaint against him.

• Nature of the Underlying Case: A final decision was rendered by the NLRC in Case No. RAB VII-0584-88, ordering an employer to pay Felicidad V. Morales and a fellow employee P190,254.00.
• Execution of Judgment: An alias writ of execution was issued and personally brought by Morales to the RTC in Pagadian City for implementation by the Provincial Sheriff.
• Demand for Fee: Respondent Sheriff Tarongoy demanded P15,000.00 from Morales as a fee for implementing the writ. Morales, eager for prompt execution, borrowed money and paid the amount.
• Levy on Properties: Tarongoy levied on two parcels of real property owned by the employer. It was later discovered that these properties were mortgaged to Metrobank and PNB for P2,000,000.00 and P7,000,000.00, respectively.
• Availability of Unencumbered Properties: Morales alleged there were eleven other parcels of land registered in the employer's name that were not mortgaged.
• Respondent's Non-Compliance: Tarongoy failed to file a comment on the administrative complaint despite two Court resolutions duly served on him. His non-compliance was treated as an admission of the charges.
• Prior Infraction: Records showed Tarongoy had previously been found guilty of negligence in A.M. P-90-468 and was fined one month's salary with a stern warning.

• Unauthorized Exaction: Petitioner Morales argued that the sheriff's demand for P15,000.00 was improper and constituted misconduct, as sheriffs are only allowed to collect legally prescribed fees.
• Negligent and Improper Levy: Petitioner contended that the sheriff acted with grave misconduct by levying on properties heavily encumbered by mortgages, rendering the levy futile for satisfying the judgment, especially when unencumbered properties were available.
• Defiance of Court Authority: The petitioner's complaint implicitly raised the issue of the sheriff's failure to perform his duties properly and diligently.

• N/A: Respondent Sheriff Julio G. Tarongoy did not file any comment, answer, or responsive pleading to the administrative complaint despite two directives from the Supreme Court. His failure to respond was deemed an admission of the charges.

• Grave Misconduct: Whether respondent Sheriff's act of demanding an unauthorized fee and levying on mortgaged properties while ignoring unencumbered ones constitutes grave misconduct.
• Defiance of Court Orders: Whether respondent's repeated failure to comply with the Supreme Court's resolutions requiring him to comment on the complaint warrants a more severe administrative penalty.

• Grave Misconduct: The charge of grave misconduct was meritorious. A sheriff's duty in executing a writ requires prudence, caution, and attention. Respondent failed to verify the value and encumbrances of the properties he levied upon, making the levy useless given the massive mortgages. He also failed to consider other unencumbered properties, thereby failing to discharge his duties properly.
• Defiance of Court Orders: Respondent's continued disregard for the Court's resolutions was not only indicative of guilt but also constituted plain defiance that could not be countenanced. This defiance, coupled with a prior record of negligence, constrained the Court to impose the supreme penalty of dismissal instead of the suspension recommended by the OCA.

• Duty of Sheriffs in Executing Writs — Sheriffs, as officers of the court tasked with executing judgments, must perform their duties with prudence, diligence, and due care. This includes conducting proper verification of properties to be levied upon to ensure they are free from liens and encumbrances and are sufficient to satisfy the judgment. They must also guide the winning party on proper procedure, such as the submission of a bill of costs for court approval, rather than making unauthorized demands for payment.
• Consequences of Defying Court Directives — The willful failure or refusal of a court officer to comply with lawful orders and directives of the Supreme Court constitutes direct defiance of judicial authority. Such defiance is an aggravating circumstance in administrative proceedings and may, in itself, warrant the imposition of the maximum penalty.

• "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." — This passage underscores that contumacious refusal to obey Court orders is an independent and serious ground for disciplinary action.
• "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." — This articulates the specific standard of care and diligence required of sheriffs in the execution of writs.

• A.M. P-90-468 (Resolution of 13 June 1994) — Cited as a prior administrative case where the same respondent was found guilty of negligence and fined, establishing a pattern of misconduct and justifying the imposition of a heavier penalty in the present case.

• Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Cited in the complaint's caption as one of the laws allegedly violated, though the Court's ruling focused on the administrative charge of grave misconduct.
• Rules of Court, concerning the duties of sheriffs and the execution of judgments — Implicitly applied in holding the sheriff to a standard of prudence and diligence in implementing the writ, including the proper levy of property.

Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, Justices Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Florenz D. Regalado, Josue N. Bellosillo, Jose C. Vitug, Santiago M. Kapunan, Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr., and Vicente V. Mendoza. (Justices Padilla, Romero, Melo, Puno, Francisco, and Panganiban were also noted as concurring.)

• N/A: The decision was rendered Per Curiam with no noted dissent.