0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
71 tayangan2 halaman
1) The sheriff failed to levy on the properties of the judgment debtors when they could not pay the money judgment, instead asking them to provide promissory notes for the complainant to collect.
2) Upon investigation, the sheriff was found to be negligent by incorrectly claiming the debtors were insolvent without properly verifying they owned real properties that could be levied.
3) Even if the debtors were insolvent, the sheriff should have garnished their salaries to enforce the judgment, as they were paid employees. There was no need for a new writ of execution.
1) The sheriff failed to levy on the properties of the judgment debtors when they could not pay the money judgment, instead asking them to provide promissory notes for the complainant to collect.
2) Upon investigation, the sheriff was found to be negligent by incorrectly claiming the debtors were insolvent without properly verifying they owned real properties that could be levied.
3) Even if the debtors were insolvent, the sheriff should have garnished their salaries to enforce the judgment, as they were paid employees. There was no need for a new writ of execution.
1) The sheriff failed to levy on the properties of the judgment debtors when they could not pay the money judgment, instead asking them to provide promissory notes for the complainant to collect.
2) Upon investigation, the sheriff was found to be negligent by incorrectly claiming the debtors were insolvent without properly verifying they owned real properties that could be levied.
3) Even if the debtors were insolvent, the sheriff should have garnished their salaries to enforce the judgment, as they were paid employees. There was no need for a new writ of execution.
DAGOOC, complainant, In his comment, respondent sheriff averred:
vs. 1. That he served a copy of the writ of ROBERTO A. ERLINA, Sheriff, Surigao del execution on the defendants but they could Sur, respondent. not pay the money judgment despite repeated demands. FACTS: 2. He went to the residence of the defendants to levy on some of their personal properties Complainant DAGOOC alleged: but he found them to be exempt from 1. That she was the plaintif in Civil Case execution pursuant to Section 13, Rule 39 of before the RTC Surigao del Sur. the Rules of Court. 2. The court rendered judgment by 3. He went to the office of the provincial compromise agreement which immediately assessor to verify if the defendants owned became final and executory. real properties which he could levy on. He 3. moved for the execution of the decision and alleged that he was given a certification that a writ of execution was issued which was there was none. So he made a return of endorsed to respondent deputy sheriff Erlina service stating that defendants were for execution. insolvent. 4. He denied calling up complainant for her to Defendants, however, could not pay the money collect defendant's payment by means of judgment. promissory notes. But he advised her to Instead of levying on the properties of the secure an alias writ of execution so he could defendants to satisfy the judgment, however, eventually go after defendants' real sheriff Erlina asked them to execute properties in Tandag, Surigao del Sur. promissory notes in favor of complainant which he asked the latter to collect from the defendants. Complainant further alleged that respondent Issue: Whether or not the sheriff is right in not sheriff indicated in his return of service that levying the properties of the judgment debtor. defendants were insolvent. But upon verification HELD: with the assessor's office of Tandag, Surigao del Sur, complainant discovered that defendants Office of the Court Administrator (OCA): found owned real properties, as evidenced by the real the complaint meritorious and respondent property field appraisal and assessment sheet. sheriff guilty of misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. It recommended that and, as such, it must be claimed not by the sheriff respondent be fined P5,000, with a warning that but by the judgment debtor himself at the time of the commission of a similar act in the future shall the levy or within a reasonable period thereafter. be dealt with more severely. jur2005cda Respondent sheriff not only failed to levy on the The law mandates that in the execution of a properties of the judgment debtor when they money judgment, the judgment debtor shall could not pay the money judgment in cash but pay either in cash, certified bank check also claimed the exemption for them. His conduct payable to the judgment obligee, or any blatantly manifested his incompetence and other form of payment acceptable to the ineptitude in discharging his functions. Moreover, latter. Nowhere does the law mention promissory respondent sheriff was seriously remiss in his notes as a form of payment. The only exception is duties when he stated in his return of service that when such form of payment is acceptable to the the defendants were insolvent without first judgment debtor. But it was obviously not diligently verifying such fact. As it turned out, the acceptable to complainant, otherwise she would defendants had real properties he could have not have filed this case against respondent sheriff. levied on to satisfy the money judgment. In fact, she objected to it because the promissory But even assuming that the defendants/judgment notes of the defendants did not satisfy the money debtors were insolvent, respondent sheriff judgment in her favor. should have garnished their salaries (being If the judgment debtor cannot pay all or part of paid employees) to enforce the judgment in the obligation in cash, certified bank check or the subject case as provided for in Section 9(c), other mode of payment acceptable to the Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. judgment obligee, the money judgment shall There was no need for an alias writ of be satisfied by levying on the properties (of execution for him to levy on the real properties every kind and nature whatsoever which may be of the defendants. The life of the writ was for five disposed of for value) of the judgment debtor. years and the judgment of the court had not yet The right of exemption from execution is a been fully satisfied. personal privilege granted to the judgment debtor
C. Property Rights of A Partner 1. G.R. No. L-45662 April 26, 1939 ENRIQUE CLEMENTE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DIONISIO GALVAN, Defendant-Appellee. JOSE ECHEVARRIA, Intervenor-Appellant
Ca 79-3136 Roger Dolese and the Dolese Company, Transferees of Dolese Bros. Co., a Dissolved Corporation v. United States of America, the Dolese Company and Dolese Concrete Company (Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Thedolese Company) v. United States of America, Roger Dolese v. United States, 605 F.2d 1146, 10th Cir. (1979)