A.M. No. P-04-1857.
March 16, 2005
MERLINDA L. DAGOOC, Complainant,
vs.
ROBERTO A. ERLINA, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 40, Tandag, Surigao del Sur, Respondents.
RESOLUTION
CORONA, J.:
This is a complaint for misconduct and ignorance of the law filed by Merlinda L. Dagooc of Diatagon
against deputy sheriff Roberto A. Erlina of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Tandag, Surigao del Sur.
Complainant alleged that she was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. L-695 before the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 28, Diatagon, Lianga, Surigao del Sur. The court rendered judgment by compromise agreement
which immediately became final and executory. Complainant moved for the execution of the decision
and, on February 28, 2002, a writ of execution was issued which was endorsed to respondent deputy
sheriff Erlina for execution. The defendants, however, could not pay the money judgment. Instead of
levying on the properties of the defendants to satisfy the judgment, however, sheriff Erlina asked them
to execute promissory notes in favor of complainant which he asked the latter to collect from the
defendants. Complainant further alleged that respondent sheriff indicated in his return of service that
defendants were insolvent. But upon verification with the assessor’s office of Tandag, Surigao del Sur,
complainant discovered that defendants owned real properties, as evidenced by the real property field
appraisal and assessment sheet.
In his comment, respondent sheriff averred that he served a copy of the writ of execution on the
defendants but they could not pay the money judgment despite repeated demands. So he went to the
residence of the defendants to levy on some of their personal properties but he found them to be
exempt from execution pursuant to Section 13, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. He then went to the office
of the provincial assessor to verify if the defendants owned real properties which he could levy on. He
alleged that he was given a certification that there was none. So he made a return of service stating that
defendants were insolvent. He denied calling up complainant for her to collect defendant’s payment by
means of promissory notes. But he advised her to secure an alias writ of execution so he could
eventually go after defendants’ real properties in Tandag, Surigao del Sur.
After the referral of the complaint, the OCA found the complaint meritorious and respondent sheriff
guilty of misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. It recommended that respondent be fined ₱5,000,
with a warning that the commission of a similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Issue: WON the OCA erred in its decision finding the complaint meritorious and respondent sheriff guilty
of misconduct and gross ignorance of the law.
Ruling:
The court affirmed the ruling of the OCA. They find it strange and highly unusual, to say the least, that
respondent sheriff did not know his duties and functions under Section 9, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of
Court which clearly states how the execution of money judgments should be made.
Section 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.
The law mandates that in the execution of a money judgment, the judgment debtor shall pay either in
cash, certified bank check payable to the judgment obligee, or any other form of payment acceptable to
the latter. Nowhere does the law mention promissory notes as a form of payment. The only exception is
when such form of payment is acceptable to the judgment debtor. But it was obviously not acceptable to
complainant, otherwise she would not have filed this case against respondent sheriff. In fact, she
objected to it because the promissory notes of the defendants did not satisfy the money judgment in
her favor.
If the judgment debtor cannot pay all or part of the obligation in cash, certified bank check or other
mode of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee, the money judgment shall be satisfied by levying
on the properties of the judgment debtor under Section 9b of the same rule.
Respondent sheriff not only failed to levy on the properties of the judgment debtor when they could not
pay the money judgment in cash but also claimed the exemption for them. His conduct blatantly
manifested his incompetence and ineptitude in discharging his functions. Moreover, respondent sheriff
was seriously remiss in his duties when he stated in his return of service that the defendants were
insolvent without first diligently verifying such fact. As it turned out, the defendants had real properties
he could have levied on to satisfy the money judgment.
But even assuming that the defendants/judgment debtors were insolvent, respondent sheriff should
have garnished their salaries (being paid employees) to enforce the judgment in the subject case as
provided for in Section 9(c), Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Also, respondent sheriff advised complainant to file a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of
execution allegedly so that he could levy on the properties of the defendants. But there was no need for
an alias writ of execution for him to levy on the real properties of the defendants. The life of the writ
was for five years and the judgment of the court had not yet been fully satisfied as stated under Section
14, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we find respondent sheriff ROBERTO A. ERLINA of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 40, Tandag, Surigao del Sur, GUILTY of inefficiency and incompetence in the
performance of his official duties. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the service for one (1) year and
WARNED that the commission of a similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely. SO
ORDERED.
