In Dagooc v. Erlina, the Supreme Court ruled that a sheriff’s failure to properly execute a writ of execution, including accepting promissory notes without the creditor’s consent and failing to levy on available properties, constitutes inefficiency and incompetence. This decision underscores the crucial role of sheriffs in upholding the integrity of court judgments and reinforces the principle that public officers must faithfully perform their duties. The court emphasized that sheriffs must exercise utmost diligence in executing court orders to protect the rights of individuals affected by their neglect.

When a Sheriff’s Actions Undermine Court Orders: The Case of Erlina’s Negligence

This case revolves around a complaint filed by Merlinda L. Dagooc against Roberto A. Erlina, a deputy sheriff, for misconduct and ignorance of the law. Dagooc was the plaintiff in a civil case where a judgment was rendered in her favor. When the defendants failed to pay the judgment, a writ of execution was issued and endorsed to Sheriff Erlina. Instead of levying on the defendants’ properties, Erlina allegedly asked them to execute promissory notes in favor of Dagooc, which she was then tasked to collect. Further, Erlina reported that the defendants were insolvent, but Dagooc discovered they owned real properties. The core legal issue is whether Sheriff Erlina’s actions constituted a dereliction of his duties in executing the writ of execution.

The Supreme Court found Sheriff Erlina’s actions to be a clear display of incompetence and ignorance of the law. The Court referenced Section 9, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, which outlines the proper procedure for executing money judgments. This section clearly states that payment should be made in cash, certified bank check, or any other form acceptable to the judgment creditor. The Court emphasized that promissory notes are not a valid form of payment unless explicitly accepted by the judgment creditor. In this case, Dagooc did not accept the promissory notes, rendering Erlina’s actions improper. The provision states:

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.  (emphasis ours)

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that if the judgment debtor cannot pay in acceptable forms, the sheriff is obligated to levy on their properties to satisfy the judgment. This is outlined in Section 9(b) of Rule 39:

Section 9(b) Satisfaction by levy. – 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 Court defined levy as the act of setting apart a portion of the judgment debtor’s property for an execution sale to satisfy the debt. However, not all properties are subject to levy, as some are exempt by law. The Court made it clear that the right to claim exemption belongs to the judgment debtor, not the sheriff.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that even if the defendants were indeed insolvent, Sheriff Erlina should have considered garnishing their salaries as provided for in Section 9(c), Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court:

(c) Garnishment of debts and credits. – The officer may levy on debts due the judgment obligor and other credits, including bank deposits, financial interests, royalties, commissions and other personal property not capable of manual delivery in the possession or control of third parties.  Levy shall be made by serving notice upon the person owing such debts or having in his possession or control such credits to which the judgment obligor is entitled.  The garnishment shall cover only such amount as will satisfy the judgment and all lawful fees.

The Court found Erlina’s suggestion to obtain an alias writ of execution unnecessary, as the original writ remained effective as long as the judgment was not fully satisfied, as per Section 14, Rule 39. This section stipulates:

Section 14. Return of writ of execution. – The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full.  If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reason therefor. Such writ shall continue in effect during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion.  The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. x x x (emphasis ours)

This case also underscores the importance of diligence for sheriffs in performing their duties. The Court emphasized that sheriffs are public officers who must perform their duties honestly and faithfully. Failure to do so can jeopardize the rights of individuals affected by their neglect. The Court ultimately found Sheriff Erlina guilty of inefficiency and incompetence. The Court underscored that sheriffs, as public officers, are expected to uphold their duties with integrity and diligence. The failure to perform these duties can lead to a breach of public trust and jeopardize the rights of the involved parties.

The Court noted that Sheriff Erlina’s actions went beyond simple ignorance, warranting a more severe penalty than initially recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). As a result, the Supreme Court suspended Sheriff Erlina from service for one year, warning that future similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the sheriff’s actions in executing a writ of execution, specifically accepting promissory notes and failing to levy on properties, constituted misconduct and ignorance of the law.
What is a writ of execution?	A writ of execution is a court order instructing a law enforcement officer, typically a sheriff, to take action to enforce a judgment, such as seizing property to satisfy a debt.
What are acceptable forms of payment for a money judgment?	Acceptable forms of payment include cash, certified bank check payable to the judgment obligee, or any other form of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee.
What should a sheriff do if the judgment debtor cannot pay in cash or check?	The sheriff should levy on the properties of the judgment debtor to satisfy the judgment.
Can a sheriff claim exemption from levy on behalf of the judgment debtor?	No, the right of exemption from execution is a personal privilege granted to the judgment debtor, and it must be claimed by the debtor, not the sheriff.
What is garnishment?	Garnishment is the process of levying on debts owed to the judgment debtor, such as salaries or bank deposits, to satisfy the judgment.
When is an alias writ of execution necessary?	An alias writ of execution is not necessary as long as the original writ is still in effect and the judgment has not been fully satisfied.
What is the duty of a sheriff in executing a writ?	A sheriff must perform their duties honestly, faithfully, and to the best of their ability, using utmost skill and diligence in executing the writ according to its terms.

The Dagooc v. Erlina case serves as a reminder to all sheriffs and public officers about the importance of performing their duties with competence, diligence, and integrity. Failure to do so can have serious consequences, including administrative sanctions. This case reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust, and all public servants must be held accountable for their actions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: MERLINDA L. DAGOOC, COMPLAINANT, VS. ROBERTO A. ERLINA, SHERIFF IV, RTC, BRANCH 40, TANDAG, SURIGAO DEL SUR, RESPONDENT., A.M. No. P-04-1857, March 16, 2005