Son vs. Leyva

A sheriff must strictly follow the mandatory procedure under Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in executing judgments for money: first, demand immediate cash payment from the judgment obligor; second, if the obligor cannot pay, levy on personal properties; and third, only if personal properties are insufficient, levy on real properties. The sheriff is also duty-bound to determine the value of the property being levied to ensure that only a sufficient portion is sold to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees.

Solomon Son was the Finance and Operations Manager of Baclaran Marketing Corporation (BMC). Respondent Rolando C. Leyva was the Branch Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 74, Antipolo City. The administrative complaint arose from the execution of a money judgment in Civil Case No. 1218-A, entitled "Mamerto Sibulo, Jr. vs. Ricardo Mendoza and Baclaran Marketing Inc.," a damages case arising from a vehicular collision. The RTC had originally ruled in favor of BMC, but the Court of Appeals reversed on appeal, and the decision became final and executory, leading to the issuance of a Writ of Execution.

Solomon Son, Finance and Operations Manager of Baclaran Marketing Corporation (BMC), filed an administrative complaint against Rolando C. Leyva, Branch Sheriff of RTC Branch 74, Antipolo City. The complaint arose from the execution of a money judgment in Civil Case No. 1218-A, a damages case filed by Mamerto Sibulo, Jr. against Ricardo Mendoza and BMC following a vehicular collision. The RTC originally ruled in favor of BMC and dismissed the complaint against it, but Sibulo appealed to the Court of Appeals without notice to BMC. Fifteen years later, on May 9, 2005, the CA reversed the RTC decision. Because BMC and Son were unaware of the appeal, the decision became final. A Writ of Execution dated January 16, 2006 and an Order dated February 23, 2006 ordering the levy of BMC's real properties were subsequently issued.

Without demanding cash payment from BMC or proceeding against its personal properties first, respondent, on April 17, 2006, immediately sold at public auction BMC's real property under TCT No. 34587. The money judgment against BMC amounted to P765,159.55. The subject property was a prime property located along Quirino Avenue, Parañaque City, with an assessed value of P33,395,000.00 as of April 2008 and a market value of P19,890,000.00 at the time of the auction. Respondent issued the Certificate of Sale on the day of the auction itself but only submitted his Sheriff's Report on January 17, 2007, more than nine months after the auction sale was completed.

In his Comment, respondent denied the charges, claiming he simply performed his ministerial duty of implementing the Writ of Execution and the Order. He alleged that he separately served BMC and its counsel of record, Atty. Isagani Rizon, copies of the notice of levy, writ of execution, and the February 23, 2006 Order on March 13, 2006 and March 21, 2006, respectively, but these notices were returned unserved with notations "Baclaran Marketing does not exist" and "CNEE moved out as per S/G Tiquio." He also sent copies of the Notice of Sheriff's Sale, which were likewise returned unserved. He received the certificate of posting, affidavit of publication, and issues of the Truth Seekers News pertaining to the notice of sheriff's sale, and only then proceeded with the auction. He sent copies of the Certificate of Sale to BMC and Atty. Rizon on April 21, 2006, but these were again returned to sender. He argued that BMC was at fault for failing to inform the court of its new address and that it was beyond his authority to determine whether BMC was still conducting business on the levied property or that the property was worth much more than the obligation.

In his Reply, complainant averred that respondent failed to exert all efforts to locate BMC's new office, which was just beside its former office, and that respondent was duty-bound to determine the property's value to assess if it was sufficient to satisfy the judgment award. The Investigating Judge found substantial evidence to hold respondent liable for failing to make a formal demand for payment, levying on real property ahead of available personal properties, and excessively levying BMC's property. The OCA concurred, finding respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty for failure to follow the mandatory procedure in the execution of a money judgment and for making an excessive levy.

• Violation of Mandatory Procedure: Complainant alleged that respondent violated Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court by failing to demand cash payment from BMC or proceed against its personal properties first before levying on its real property, and by making an excessive levy on a property worth P19,890,000.00 to satisfy a judgment debt of only P765,159.55.
• Improper Notice and Service: Complainant alleged that respondent violated Section 15(d), Rule 39 requiring written notice of sale to the judgment obligor at least three days before the sale; Section 9(b), Rule 39 in relation to Section 7(a), Rule 57 for failing to leave a copy of the order with the occupants of the property; and Section 14, Rule 39 for failing to make a return to the court immediately after the auction, submitting his Sheriff's Report only on January 17, 2007, more than nine months after the auction.
• Failure to Exert Diligent Efforts: Complainant averred that respondent failed to exert all efforts to locate BMC's new office, which was just beside its former office, and that respondent was duty-bound to determine the property's value to assess if it was sufficient to satisfy the judgment award.

• Ministerial Duty: Respondent countered that he simply performed his ministerial duty of implementing the Writ of Execution dated January 16, 2006 and the Order dated February 23, 2006.
• Futility of Demand: Respondent argued that it was futile to demand cash payment from BMC because its address was unknown, as all notices he sent were returned unserved with notations such as "Baclaran Marketing does not exist" and "returned to sender, moved."
• BMC's Fault: Respondent argued that BMC was at fault for failing to inform the court of its new address, and that it was beyond his authority to determine if BMC was still conducting business on the levied property or that the levied property was worth much more than the obligation.

• Violation of Mandatory Execution Procedure: Whether respondent violated Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court by failing to demand cash payment from BMC and by levying on its real property ahead of its personal properties.
• Improper Service of Notices: Whether respondent's service of notices through a private courier (LBC) without explanation violated Sections 8 and 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
• Excessive Levy: Whether respondent made an excessive levy on BMC's real property in violation of Section 9(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

• Violation of Mandatory Execution Procedure: Yes. Respondent violated the mandatory procedure under Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court by directly sending notice of levy instead of first demanding cash payment from BMC and by failing to levy on BMC's personal properties before proceeding against its real property.
• Improper Service of Notices: Yes. Respondent's service of notices through LBC, a private courier, without any explanation why personal service or service by registered mail was not made, violated Sections 8 and 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
• Excessive Levy: Yes. Respondent made an excessive levy by selling a property with a fair market value of P19,890,000.00 to satisfy a judgment debt of only P765,159.55, in violation of the mandate to sell only a sufficient portion of the property to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees.

• Violation of Mandatory Execution Procedure: Section 9, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court prescribes the procedure for executing judgments for money in a specific order: first, the officer must demand from the judgment obligor immediate payment in cash; second, if the obligor fails to pay, the officer shall levy on personal properties; and third, only if personal properties are insufficient shall the officer levy on real properties. Here, respondent did not attempt to demand payment from BMC or levy on its personal properties. Instead, he immediately sent notices of levy. Respondent's claim that it was futile to demand cash payment because BMC's address was unknown did not justify his patent violation of the procedure. When writs are placed in the hands of sheriffs, it is their ministerial duty to proceed to execute them in accordance with the rules, and where a requirement is made in explicit and unambiguous terms, no discretion is left to the sheriff.

• Improper Service of Notices: Under Section 5, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court, service of notices shall either be done personally or by registered mail. Respondent erroneously served the notices through LBC, a private courier, without any explanation why personal service or service by registered mail was not made, in violation of Sections 8 and 11, Rule 13. A party who resorts to service through a private courier should have a justifiable reason and should explain why proper modes of services were not availed of. Had respondent resorted to personal service, he could have easily located complainant and BMC's new address because it was just beside their previous office address. The requirement of notice is based on the rudiments of justice and fair play, and an immediate enforcement of a writ does not mean the abdication of the notification requirement.

• Excessive Levy: Even granting that levy could be made directly on BMC's real property, the sheriff is mandated to sell only such portion of the personal or real property of the judgment obligor sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees. Here, the judgment debt was only P765,159.55, while the property levied upon had a fair market value of P19,890,000.00. The executing officer is duty-bound to determine the value of the property being levied to determine if it is sufficient to satisfy the money judgment and lawful fees. Respondent cannot negate liability by simply asserting that he did not have any authority to ascertain how much the property actually cost. A sheriff cannot just unilaterally and whimsically choose how to enforce the writ without observing the proper procedural steps laid down by the rules, otherwise, it would amount to gross neglect of duty.

• Gross Neglect of Duty — Refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty. In this case, respondent's failure to follow the mandatory procedure in executing the money judgment and his excessive levy constituted gross neglect of duty.
• Ministerial Duty of Sheriffs — When writs are placed in the hands of sheriffs, it is their ministerial duty to proceed to execute them in accordance with the rules. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in the context of a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner and without regard to the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. Where a requirement is made in explicit and unambiguous terms, no discretion is left to the sheriff.
• Excessive Levy — The sheriff shall sell only a sufficient portion of the personal or real property of the judgment obligor which has been levied upon. When there is more property of the judgment obligor than is sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees, he must sell only so much of the personal or real property as is sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees. The executing officer is duty-bound to determine the value of the property being levied to determine if it is sufficient to satisfy the money judgment and lawful fees.

• "The rule commands that the executing officer shall enforce the judgments for money in this order: First, the officer must demand from the judgment obligor to pay in cash the judgment obligation; Second, if the judgment obligor fails to pay in cash, the officer shall proceed to levy on the personal properties of the judgment obligor; and Third, if there are no personal properties, the officer shall then levy on the real properties of the judgment obligor." — This passage articulates the mandatory three-step procedure under Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court for executing money judgments, which is the central ratio decidendi of the case.
• "A sheriff cannot just unilaterally and whimsically choose how to enforce the writ without observing the proper procedural steps laid down by the rules, otherwise, it would amount to gross neglect of duty." — This states the core principle that sheriffs must strictly follow the procedural rules in executing writs, and deviation therefrom constitutes gross neglect of duty.
• "The requirement of notice is based on the rudiments of justice and fair play. It frowns upon arbitrariness and oppressive conduct in the execution of an otherwise legitimate act. It is an amplification of the provision that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith." — This passage underscores the importance of proper notice in execution proceedings and its foundation in the principles of justice and fair play.

• Teodosio vs. Somosa, et al., 612 Phil. 858, 873 (2004) — Cited for the rule that when writs are placed in the hands of sheriffs, it is their ministerial duty to proceed to execute them in accordance with the rules, and where a requirement is made in explicit and unambiguous terms, no discretion is left to the sheriff.
• PNB Marketing vs. Deang Marketing Corp. et al., 593 Phil. 703, 712-713 (2008) — Cited for the rule that a party who resorts to service through a private courier should have a justifiable reason and should explain why proper modes of services were not availed of.
• Raymundo vs. Calaguas, 490 Phil. 320, 325 (2005) — Cited for the principle that the requirement of notice is based on the rudiments of justice and fair play, and that an immediate enforcement of a writ does not mean the abdication of the notification requirement.
• Office of the Ombudsman vs. De Leon, 705 Phil. 26, 37-38 (2013) — Cited for the definition of gross neglect of duty or gross negligence.
• V.C. Ponce Co., Inc. vs. Judge Eduarte, 397 Phil. 498, 510 (2000) — Cited for the duty of sheriffs to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence as officers of the Court and agents of the law.
• Roxas vs. Sicat, A.M. No. P-17-3639, January 23, 2018 — Cited as an instance where the Court dismissed a respondent sheriff for gross neglect of duty and inefficiency in the performance of official duties.
• Araza vs. Garcia, et al., 381 Phil. 808, 818 (2000) — Cited as an instance where the Court dismissed a respondent sheriff for not strictly following the terms of the writ.
• OCA vs. Ret. Judge Chavez, et al., 815 Phil. 41, 46 (2017) — Cited for instances where the imposition of penalties has been tempered due to the presence of mitigating circumstances.

• Section 9, Rule 39, Revised Rules of Court — Prescribes the procedure for executing judgments for money: (a) immediate payment on demand; (b) satisfaction by levy, first on personal properties, then on real properties if personal properties are insufficient; and the mandate to sell only a sufficient portion of the property to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees. The Court found respondent violated this provision by failing to demand cash payment first, failing to levy on personal properties first, and making an excessive levy.
• Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11, Rule 13, Revised Rules of Court — Prescribes the modes of service of notices: personally or by registered mail, with substituted service as a fallback, and the requirement of a written explanation when resorting to other modes. The Court found respondent violated these provisions by serving notices through LBC, a private courier, without explanation.
• Canon IV, Section 6, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel — Provides that court personnel shall expeditiously enforce rules and implement orders of the court within the limits of their authority. The Court cited this in determining respondent's liability.
• Section 50, Rule 10, 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Provides that gross neglect of duty is punishable with dismissal, while inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties is punishable with suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense. The Court considered this in determining the penalty.
• Section 48, Rule 10, Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service — Provides for mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances to be considered in determining penalties, including first offense and length of service. The Court applied this in tempering the penalty imposed.

• Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson)
• Reyes, J., Jr.
• Inting, J.

Caguioa, J., was on official leave.