Anda di halaman 1dari 2

MERLINDA L.

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

Anda mungkin juga menyukai