ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
THIRD DIVISION
[
A.M. No. P-96-1227.
RENATO L. LIRIO, Complainant, vs. ARTURO A. RAMOS, Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati City, Respondent.
.D E C I S I O N
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
In a sworn complaint-affidavit dated
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On
On
WHEREFORE, let the preliminary writ of attachment issue for the
attachment of defendants property with a value of P11,382,000.00, more or less, after
the plaintiff has posted a bond, cleared by the Office of the Clerk of Court
and approved by this Court, in the amount of P1,000,000.00 to answer for
the damages that defendants may suffer by reasons of the attachment, if later
on, the Court finds the plaintiff is not entitled thereto.
In order to maintain the status quo and not to render moot and academic or ineffectual the relief prayed for in the complaint, the defendants, their agents or representative are hereby temporarily enjoined from disposing or encumbering the house and lot covered by TCT No. 149433 of the Register of Deeds of Makati. [1cräläwvirtualibräry
On P11,382,000.00,
and commanded the sheriff, herein respondent Arturo A. Ramos,
to attach the estate, real and personal of the said defendants in your province to the value of the said demands and costs of suit and that you safely keep the same according to these rules, unless the defendant/s gives security to pay such judgment as may be recovered in the said action in the manner provided by the Rules of Court. [2cräläwvirtualibräry
On 11 April 1995, respondent Ramos filed with the Register of
Deeds of Makati City a "Notice of Attachment and/or Levy of Real Properties"
informing the latter of the levy upon all the rights, claims, shares,
interests, and participation of the defendants (herein complainant and his
wife) over the lots covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 183949 and
199480, which are, according to the complainant, a residential house and lot
and a vacant residential lot, respectively, located in Ayala, Alabang,
Muntinlupa, with a total value of P30 million. The respondent likewise levied on attachment
the complainants rights and interest in the Ayala Alabang Homeowners
Association. He did not attach the lot
subject of Civil Case No. 95-521, which is covered by TCT No. 149433 because,
as he explained, plaintiff Aaron told him not to, it having been already
covered by the restraining order.
The complainant then filed a motion to exclude the attached property and to cite the respondent in contempt of court, which was later amended to emphasize the fact that the respondent did not attach the property subject of the case and covered by TCT No. 149433, but instead attached those covered by TCT Nos. 183949 and 199480. The complainant maintained that pursuant to Gruenberg vs. Court of Appeals, [3 only the property under litigation should have been attached.
In its order of
Upon the denial of her motion to reconsider the aforesaid order,
Aaron filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, which
was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 37489. In
its decision of
The Court of Appeals made the following ratiocination in arriving at a ruling that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion for exclusion:
1. It is plain and clear
as noonday that per the Order of April 6, 1995, the lower court issued the
preliminary writ of attachment on the "defendants property with value of P11,382,000.00,"
which consists of the house and lot located at 304 Apo Street, Ayala Alabang
Village, and covered by TCT 149433.
When the sheriff levied the other properties of the respondents
covered by TCT 183949 and TCT 199480, instead of the property covered by TCT
149433, [he] disobeyed the order of the court of April 6, 1995, and in effect
the sheriff was arrogating upon himself judicial powers which he did not
have. Such act of the sheriff was highly
irregular, illegal and absolutely null and void. The sheriff is not the court, he cannot be
above and superior to the court, and he cannot act as if he has the power of
the court in levying other properties of respondents which are not indicated
per said Order of
x x x
Section 5 of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court provides for the "Manner of attaching property," as follows:
x x x
Note, the law requires the sheriff to execute the order of
attachment, in the present case the Order of
x x x
It is thus clear from the above, that when the sheriff proceeded to levy not the parcel of lot covered by TCT 149433, but instead the parcels of land covered by TCT 193949 and TCT 199480, it was upon the instance of the petitioner, in complete disregard of the order of the court of April 6, 1995, which he was duty bound to obey. The sheriff, being an officer of the court, and not of the petitioner, obeyed instead the petitioner who had no power or authority, under the law, to cause the sheriff to levy other properties of respondents in violation of the order of the court. [5cräläwvirtualibräry
In view of the foregoing decision of the Court of Appeals, the complainant filed the instant complaint.
In his Comment [6 submitted in compliance with the resolution of 18 September 1995, the respondent admitted having levied on attachment "personal and real properties" of the complainant consisting of the latters shares of stocks at Ayala Alabang Homeowners Association and the lots covered by TCT Nos. 183949 and 199480 together with the improvements existing thereon. He justified his action by alleging
That in enforcing the Writ of Preliminary Attachment it is common knowledge and practice that the plaintiff is the one supplying information of the properties of the defendants to be attached.
That in the Order of
That [he] was of the impression that based on the tenor of the
Order of P3,000.000.00
exclusive of moral damages in the amount of P10,000,000.00.
He further alleged that the lots covered
by TCT Nos. 183949 and 199480 have an aggregate market value of only P3,489,430.00
as shown in their tax declarations, and not P30 million, as claimed by
the complainant. Finally, the respondent
submits that he did not commit any misconduct.
The complaint filed a reply to the comment.
In compliance with the resolution of
In his Memorandum dated 27 February 1996, Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis recommended that since no substantial damage was sustained by the complainant with the lifting of the levy over the two properties at Ayala, Alabang, Muntinlupa, only a FINE equivalent to his one-month salary should be imposed upon the respondent with a warning that similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. This recommendation is based on the following findings:
It is therefore surprising why until this moment, it has not yet even dawned upon the mind of the respondent that he is not above the law but should be subservient to it (del Rosario vs. Bascar, Jr., 206 SCRA 678). He persists in his rationalization that he did right because in the prepared form of the directive issued for the sheriffs by the court, there are, inter alia, words to the effect that he could attach properties, etc., of the losing party to carry out the decision. This interpretation of ready-made forms adopted by the courts for convenience and for saving time should not be understood and interpreted out of the context. Respondent manifested either extreme naivety/innocence or deceptive spirit. We say it is the latter. Shall we believe that a sheriff, well-versed with his job, going around for long in his execution-tasks, still at the dark or confused whether or not he has discretion in implementing orders? Does he not know that his duties are merely ministerial in nature? He has been in the government service since 1962 with three (3) civil service eligibilities and considered definitely "veteran" or "hustler" in the workings of a court. It does not necessarily follow that since there was no prohibition for him, in the notice of attachment levy issued by the court a quo, he could already attach other properties not specifically described therein.
Respondent is not the judge, therefore, he cannot add nor subtract to the content of the order issued by the court below. His duty is only to implement, to help carry out, said order. To think and do otherwise is definitely an act amounting to grave abuse of authority (Salazar vs. Villaflor, 81 SCRA 229).
The obstinacy and insubordination being displayed by the respondent amidst the proofs that he was really wrong in what he did to the complainant and his wife in the civil suit filed against them must not be treated with impunity.
There was already the order issued by his judge at the RTC, Branch 66, Makati City, plus the affirmation of the said lifting by a higher appellate court -- the Court of Appeals, still, in his submitted comment, the respondent insists in his wrong position. He should be jolted and shaken to come to reason and the rule of law. Instead of taking the opportunity of apologizing for his grave mistakes, he maintains his posture proving his unworthiness by clinging to his erroneous assertions.
We are reluctant to give our imprimatur to the above findings, for they are premised more on the respondents insistence on his "wrong position" and failure to "apologize for his grave mistakes." It must be pointed out that the trial court denied the motion to hold the respondent in contempt of court in connection with the alleged irregularities committed by him in the implementation of the writ of attachment. And the record does not show that the complainant moved for a reconsideration of the denial or appealed therefrom. Besides, the respondent was not a party in CA-G.R. SP No. 37489. Hence, he could not be expected to meekly plead guilty to the administrative charge against him and interpose such plea to mitigate his liability if he genuinely believed that he acted properly in the implementation of the writ of attachment.
As we see it, the respondent was not entirely wrong in levying
property other than that involved in Civil Case No. 95-521. The order of P11,382,000.00, more or less"; and
the Writ of Preliminary Attachment stated that the claim of the complainant was
P11,382,000.00 and commanded the sheriff to attach "the estate, real and
personal, of the said defendants." The
upshot of these directives is that the sheriff could attach any real and
personal property of the defendants to the extent of P11,382,000.00. He was not precluded from levying on
attachment either the subject property alone or any other real and personal
property. The only limit to his
determination of what to attach was the amount of the claim fixed in the order
of attachment and writ of attachment, viz., P11,382,000.00.
The trial court itself, in its order of
The administrative liability then of the respondent cannot lie in
the attachment of the complainants other properties but in his failure to
faithfully comply with the requirement that he should attach only to the extent
sufficient to satisfy the applicants demand, which was P11,382,000.00,
as fixed by the trial court. Section 5,
Rule 57 of the Rules of Court pertinently provides:
SEC. 5. Manner of attaching property. -- The officer executing the order shall without delay attach, to await judgment and execution in the action, all the properties of the party against whom the order is issued in the province, not exempt from execution, or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicants demand, unless the former makes a deposit with the clerk or judge of the court from which the order issued, or gives a counter-bond executed to the applicant, in an amount sufficient to satisfy such demand besides costs, or in an amount equal to the value of the property which is about to be attached, to secure payment to the applicant of any judgment which he may recover in the action
The respondent exerted no effort to
determine the value of the properties attached.
His defense that the aggregate market value of the attached two lots as
shown by their tax declarations is only P3,489,430.00 cannot provide him
any relief. This defense is a delayed
afterthought, as it was raised for the first time in his Comment in this
case. Since he obtained the tax
declarations only on
Moreover, the respondent did not strictly comply with prescribed rules on attachment and on the return of the writ. Pertinent portions of Section 7, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court which governs the former read as follows:
SEC. 7. Attachment of real and personal property; recording thereof. -- Properties shall be attached by the officer executing the order in the following manner:
(a) Real property, or growing crops thereon, standing upon the records of the registrar of deeds of the province in the name of the party against whom attachment is issued, or not appearing at all upon such records, by filing with the registrar of deeds a copy of the order, together with a description of the property attached, and a notice that it is attached, and by leaving a copy of such order, description, and notice with the occupant of the property, if any there be. Where the property has been brought under the operation of the Land Registration Act, the notice shall contain a reference to the number of the certificate of title and the volume and page in the registration book where the certificate is registered. The registrar must index attachments filed under this paragraph in the names both of the applicant and the adverse party;
x x x
(d) Stocks or shares, or an interest in stocks or shares, of any corporation or company, by leaving with the president or managing agent thereof, a copy of the order, and a notice stating that the stock or interest of the party against whom the attachment is issued, is attached in pursuance of such order;
Section 6 of the same Rule provides for the return of the writ and reads as follows:
SEC. 6. Officers return. -- Immediately after executing the order the officer must make a return thereon to the clerk or judge of the court from which the order issued, with a full statement of his proceedings under the order and complete inventory of the property attached, together with any counter-bond given by the party against whom attachment is issued, and serve a copy of any such counter-bond on the applicant or his lawyer.
The respondents notice of levy addressed to the Registrar of Deeds did not contain a description of the property attached. It only stated: "Please see attached xerox copy of Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 183949 and 199480 both registered in the name of SPS. RENATO S. LIRIO and JOCELYN C. LIRIO." [8 Neither did the notice contain a reference to the page in the registration book where the certificate is registered.
As to the Sheriffs return or report, [9 the respondent made no "complete inventory of the property attached" as required in Section 6, but merely stated: "Levy was also made on defendants real properties at the Registrar of Deeds of Makati and at Ayals [sic] Alabang Homeowners Association."
Needless to state, the respondents disregard of Sections 5, 6, and 7 of Rule 57 amounted to neglect or dereliction of duty or outright refusal to perform official duty. Sheriffs must never be cavalier in their attitude in the implementaiton of writs of attachment; instead, they should strictly follow the rules relative thereto. For attachment is harsh, extraordinary, and summary in nature; it is a rigorous remedy which exposes the debtor to humiliation and annoyance. [10cräläwvirtualibräry
We have said it before, [11 and we say it now, that the administration of justice is a sacred task. By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, all those involved in it must faithfully adhere to, hold inviolate, and invigorate the principle solemnly enshrined in the 1987 Constitution that a public office is a public trust; and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. [12 We can never countenance any conduct, act, or omission on the part of anyone involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.
WHEREFORE, for neglect or dereliction of duty or refusal to perform an official duty, respondent ARTURO A. RAMOS is hereby SUSPENDED from office for ONE (1) MONTH, effective upon receipt of this Decision which should be personally served upon him by the Office of the Court Administrator.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J. (Chairman), Melo, Francisco, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, 8-9.
2 Id., 10.
3 138 SCRA 471 [1985].
4 Rollo, 13.
5 Rollo, 21-23.
6 Id., 80-82.
7 Rollo, 83-85.
8 Rollo, 11.
9 Id., 12.
[10 Gruenberg vs. Court of Appeals, supra note 3, at 477-478; Salgado vs. Court of Appeals, 128 SCRA 395, 400 [1984].
[11 Sy vs. Academia, 198 SCRA 705, 717 [1991].
[12 Section 1, Article XI, Constitution.