In the recent administrative case of ATTY. HECTOR P. TEODOSIO vs. ROLANDO R. SOMOSA, et. al., En Banc, A.M. No. P-09-2610 (per curiam), August 13, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court found the respondents, Sheriffs Gani Lacatan and Camilo Divinagracia, Jr., Deputy Sheriffs of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, and Sheriffs Rolando Somosa, Edgardo Cordero and Rodolfo Haro, Deputy Sheriffs of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Iloilo City GUILTY of grave abuse of authority amounting to GRAVE MISCONDUCT, and were ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
This administrative case involving judicial employees of a major Philippine province in the south was so embarrassing (to the point of being educational, if such a concept exists) that big Philippine dailies in Manila carried reports thereon, which I am reproducing at the end of this blog.
I wish to digest the abovementioned Supreme Court decision for legal research purposes of the visitors of this blog.
The case arose out of a letter-complaint dated July 3, 2007 filed by complainant Atty. Hector P. Teodosio against respondent Sheriffs Gani Lacatan and Camilo Divinagracia, Jr., Deputy Sheriffs of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, and respondents Sheriffs Rolando Somosa, Edgardo Cordero and Rodolfo Haro, Deputy Sheriffs of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Iloilo City, with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) relative to the irregular manner of implementing the writ of execution issued by the MTCC, Branch 2, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental in Criminal Case Nos. 03-6-5516 to 03-6-5542, 03-9-6218 to 03-9-6270, 03-10-6498 to 03-10-6549, entitled People of the Philippines v. Mary Ann Ng (for violation of BP Blg. 22, bouncing check law).
On August 27, 2004, the MTCC, Branch 2, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, rendered a Decision on the civil aspect of the abovecited criminal cases filed by Lita Gamboa against Mary Ann Ng, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Nueva Swine Valley, Inc. (Nueva Swine). Said decision was based on an amicable settlement entered into between Ng and Keylargo Commodities Trading (Keylargo), represented by Lita Gamboa, wherein the former agreed to pay on installment basis her civil liability in the form of post dated checks she would issue, for and in behalf of Nueva Swine.
When Ng failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the judgment, Gamboa, through her counsel, moved for the execution of the decision. On August 4, 2006, the MTCC issued a Writ of Execution, which commanded the sheriffs to cause the execution of the aforesaid judgment on the civil aspect of the said criminal cases; to levy the goods and chattels of the accused, except those which are exempt from execution and to make the sale thereof in accordance with the procedure outlined by Rule 39, Revised Rules of Court, and in such cases made and provided together with all your lawful fees for the service of this Writ. The writ further stated that in case sufficient personal property of the accused could not be found whereof to satisfy the amount of the said judgment, the sheriffs were directed to levy the real property of said accused and to sell the same or so much thereof in the manner provided for by law for the satisfaction of the said judgment. The sheriffs were commanded only sell so much of the personal or real property as was sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees, and make a report to the trial court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken until the judgment was satisfied in full, or its effectivity expired.
On May 31, 2007, the respondent sheriffs proceeded to Nueva Swine’s hog farm at Barangay Talokgangan, Banate, Iloilo to implement the writ. Upon reaching the place, they introduced themselves and explained to the officer-in-charge (OIC) their purpose, as accused Ng was not around. They then served upon the OIC a copy of the writ, together with the decision, and demanded the money judgment. When the OIC failed to produce the money, respondents levied and took away 675 pigs and, thereafter, delivered them to Keylargo for safekeeping. A Notice of Levy on Execution was issued on the same day to accused Ng.
On June 1, 2007, complainant in this administrative case Atty. Teodosio (counsel for Nueva Swine’s hog farm) sought a 72-hour Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) with the RTC, Branch 66 of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, which the latter granted, enjoining respondents, their agents and other persons acting for and on their behalf, from removing, transferring, disposing of and selling the swine in the hog farm of Nueva Swine in Brgy. Talokgangan, Banate, and in Nueva Invencion, Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, and from selling or disposing the swine already taken, which would be preserved and maintained in its present location under supervision of the sheriff of the court.
Despite the TRO, respondent sheriffs issued a Sheriff’s Notice of Sale on Execution, setting the auction sale of the pigs levied on June 5, 2007, 10:00 a.m., at the Victorias Milling Corporation Farm Site in Victorias City, Negros Occidental.
On June 4, 2007, Judge Rogelio Amador of the RTC, Branch 66 of Iloilo City issued an Order extending the 72-hour TRO to a full 20 days, or until June 21, 2007, and setting the case for a preliminary injunction on June 15, 2007. Said Order was served and received by the Provincial and City Sheriffs of Iloilo.
On June 5, 2007, respondents personally turned over all levied hogs to the MTCC, Branch 2 of Bacolod City.
On June 7, 2007, Branch Sheriff Emilio Portal of the MTC, Branch 2, Bacolod City, conducted the public auction sale of the levied hogs.
In a Memorandum dated February 4, 2009, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with the findings of the Investigating Judge establishing the guilt of the respondents.
The OCA stated that Section 9 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in the execution of a judgment for money, the officer enforcing such judgment shall demand from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees. If the judgment obligor cannot pay all or part of the obligation in cash, certified bank check or other mode of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee, the officer shall levy upon the properties of the judgment obligor of every kind and nature whatsoever which may be disposed of for value and not otherwise exempt from execution giving the latter the option to immediately choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon, sufficient to satisfy the judgment. If the judgment obligor does not exercise the option, the officer shall first levy on the personal properties, if any, and then on the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient to answer for the judgment.
The OCA added that in the implementation of the writ of execution, respondents failed to strictly comply with the above rule. They failed to show that they demanded from accused Ng the payment of the judgment obligation. Records show that the writ was served on an officer of Nueva Swine who is not a party to the case and not on accused Ng. In their Return of Service dated June 28, 2007, respondents stated that when they arrived in the hog farm of Nueva Swine, accused Ng was not present. Mr. Donglal, an officer of the corporation, allegedly contacted accused Ng but it was not shown whether respondents talked to the former and demanded from her the payment of her obligation. In his affidavit, Mr. Donglal, denied talking with accused Ng nor did respondents ask him to talk to her. Thereafter, respondents demanded from Mr. Donglal the payment of the judgment obligation. When the latter failed to pay the obligation, respondents levied the corporation’s properties. Again, this is in violation of the rules as the hogs levied upon by respondents are not the personal properties of accused Ng.
The OCA stated that respondents’ argument that the checks, subject of the criminal case, were issued by accused Ng as president of Nueva Swine and for the benefit of the corporation was irrelevant.
The OAC added that the Writ of Execution dated August 4, 2007 issued by MTCC, Branch 2, Bacolod City, specifically directed the sheriff or his deputies to cause the execution of the judgment on the civil aspect of the cases; to levy the goods and chattels of the accused, except those which are exempt from execution and to make the sale thereof in accordance with the procedure outlined by Rule 39, Revised Rules of Court. If the personal property of the accused is insufficient to satisfy the amount of the said judgment by levying the real property of said accused and to sell the same or so much thereof in the manner provided for by law for the satisfaction of the said judgment. The writ made no mention of implementing the writ on the properties of Nueva Swine, rather, it provided to levy the goods and chattels of the accused Ng. Further, the Order dated January 22, 2007 issued by Judge Demonteverde unequivocally directed the City Sheriff and/or the Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo to serve the writ of execution on the civil aspect of the criminal cases to accused Mary Ann Ng and not to Nueva Swine.
It is a basic principle of law that money judgments are enforceable only against property unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor.
In the case at bench, the officer of Nueva Swine during the implementation of the writ of execution informed respondents that the personal properties being levied upon does not belong to accused Ng, the judgment obligor, but to Nueva Swine, a juridical person separate and distinct from the judgment obligor. Such information should have warned respondents of the possibility of levying properties not belonging to accused Ng. Respondents have no authority to determine which property to levy based on documents presented to them and to conclude that the checks issued by accused Ng was for and in behalf of Nueva Swine. Their only directive is to implement the writ on the properties of accused Ng. They have no capacity to vary the judgment and deviate therefrom based on their own interpretation thereof.
Acting on the reports of the investigating executive judge and the OCA, the Court, by way of affirming the same, held that sheriffs are ministerial officers. They are agents of the law and not agents of the parties, neither of the creditor nor of the purchaser at a sale conducted by either of them. As such, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence, because in serving the court’s writs and processes and in implementing the orders of the court, they cannot afford to err without affecting the efficiency of the process of the administration of justice. Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice and as agents of the law, high standards are expected of them.
The procedure for the implementation of a writ of execution of judgment is provided for under Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which states:
SEC. 9. Execution of judgments for money, how enforced. -
(a) Immediate payment on demand. – The officer shall enforce an execution of a judgment for money by demanding from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees. The judgment obligor shall pay in cash, certified bank check payable to the judgment obligee, or any other form of payment acceptable to the latter, the amount of the judgment debt under proper receipt directly to the judgment obligee or his authorized representative if present at the time of payment. The lawful fees shall be handed under proper receipt to the executing sheriff who shall turn over the said amount within the same day to the clerk of court of the court that issued the writ. (Emphasis Supplied.)
x x x x
In the present case, it was clearly shown that respondents failed to follow the above-cited procedure. Instead of demanding payment from accused Ng, the judgment obligor and therein defendant, as to the civil aspect in Criminal Case Nos. 03-6-5516 to 03-6-5542, 03-9-6218 to 03-9-6270, 03-10-6498 to 03-10-6549, respondents served the writ of execution on Dr. Donglal, an officer of Nueva Swine. Respondents claimed that they tried to contact accused Ng through Dr. Donglal although the latter did not mention such incident in his affidavit. However, respondents failed to establish that they exerted all means to look for accused Ng, who should have been given the option as to which of her personal properties could be levied. They merely proceeded to demand payment from Dr. Donglal who was not even a party to the said criminal case. Worse, they levied the property of Nueva Swine.
The Supreme Court stressed that in the execution of a money judgment, the sheriff must first make a demand on the obligor for payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution. Property belonging to third persons cannot be levied upon. Accused Ng was the judgment obligor as stated in said writ, and not Nueva Swine, although she was the President and CEO of the said company. She has a personality which is separate and distinct from that of the corporation and, likewise, her properties cannot be considered as properties of the corporation. Even assuming that accused Ng owned a majority of the stocks of Nueva Swine, respondents could have, at most, proceeded against her shares of stock, but not levy the hogs of Nueva Swine. Although the legal fiction that a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from that of stockholders and members may be disregarded, this exception should not be applied if it is used as a means to perpetrate fraud or an illegal act; or as a vehicle to evade an existing obligation, to circumvent statutes, or to confuse legitimate issues. Therefore, when respondents levied the properties of the corporation, a third party to the case and not named in the writ, they exceeded their authority to strictly comply with the writ of execution.
The Court added that therespondents committed grave abuse of authority when they forcibly took the swine despite the explanation of Dr. Donglal that the properties being levied did not belong to accused Ng. They continued to load the hogs into their cargo trucks even after having been informed of the TRO. Respondents’ taking was aggravated by the fact that they slaughtered one of the hogs, a fact that they expressly admitted and even stated in the Sheriffs’ Return of Service dated June 28, 2007. The slaughtered pig was then cooked into lechon (roasted pig), and respondents feasted on it while still in the premises of Nueva Swine. While respondents maintain that it was Dr. Donglal who proposed that the pig be slaughtered as food for them, such excuse is unacceptable because sheriffs cannot appropriate levied property for themselves, even though the same be purportedly upon the instance of Dr. Donglal. Sheriffs are enjoined to keep levied properties securely in their custody, and file a return of the writ of execution.
According top the Court such conduct of respondents evidently fell short of the standard established by the pertinent provisions of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, specifically Section 2, which states that court personnel shall carry out their responsibilities as public servants in as courteous a manner as possible; and Section 6, which states that court personnel shall expeditiously enforce rules and implement orders of the court within the limits of their authority.
Respondents became administratively liable for grave abuse of authority when they forcibly levied and took away properties belonging to a third person and, thereafter, appropriated the levied property for themselves. Respondents’ grave abuse of authority amounted to gross misconduct, which under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule IV, Section 52 A (3) thereof, is a grave offense punishable by dismissal even for the first offense.
The news item on the above matter appears below.
SC dismisses 5 Iloilo sheriffs for seizure of pigs
By Nestor P. Burgos Jr.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Inquirer Visayas
First Posted 20:25:00 11/22/2009
ILOILO CITY, Philippines—The Supreme Court stood pat on its decision dismissing from service five court sheriffs in this city for illegally confiscating pigs and feasting on one of them in 2007.
In an en banc ruling promulgated on Oct. 13 and released on Nov. 4, the high court dismissed with finality the motions for reconsideration filed in September by the sheriffs.
“The court resolved to deny with finality the …motions … there being no substantial matter raised to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision,” it said.
The latest ruling upheld an Aug. 13 order dismissing Rolando Somosa, Edgar Cordero and Rodolfo Haro, sheriffs of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC); and Gani Lacatan and Camilo Divinagracia Jr., sheriffs of the Iloilo Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The court also ordered the forfeiture of all benefits and privileges of the sheriffs, except accrued leave credits.
The high court found them guilty of grave misconduct after they illegally confiscated 675 heads of swine from Nueva Swine Valley Inc. and admitted roasting and eating one of the pigs when they served a writ of execution related to a civil case two years ago.
The executive judge of the Iloilo RTC and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) had earlier found the sheriffs to have violated procedures under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure governing the implementation of execution of judgments for money when they levied the property of Nueva Swine Valley, which was not the subject of the writ of execution.
Mary Ann Ng, president and chief executive officer of the swine firm, was the subject of a criminal and civil complaint of Lita Gamboa, representing Keylargo Commodities Trading. Gamboa accused Ng of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) for not paying her liabilities to complainant.
Investigations showed that on May 31, 2007, the sheriffs served the order of execution issued by the Municipal Trial Circuit Court Branch 2 in Bacolod City.
The order required Ng to pay her debts and the sheriffs to levy her properties if she failed to do so.
The high court had also pointed out that the properties of Nueva Swine were not the subject of the levy order because Ng has a separate and distinct personality from that of the corporation even if she was the corporation’s president and chief executive officer.
See:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20091122-237767/SC-dismisses-5-Iloilo-sheriffs-for-seizure-of-pigs
