Upholding Ministerial Duty: Clerks of Court Cannot Refuse to Execute Final Deeds of Sale

In the Philippines, certain public officials, like Clerks of Court acting as Ex-Officio Sheriffs, have specific ministerial duties they must perform. This means they have no discretion to refuse when legally mandated to act. The case of Remollo v. Garcia underscores this principle, highlighting that failing to execute a Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale when legally obligated constitutes gross misconduct, especially when influenced by personal bias. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of impartiality and adherence to legal duties in the judicial system.

A.M. No. P-98-1276, September 25, 1998

INTRODUCTION

Imagine winning a long, arduous court battle, only to be denied the fruits of your victory because a court official refuses to perform a simple, mandated task. This was the frustrating reality for Edgar Remollo, who had to fight tooth and nail to compel a Clerk of Court to execute a Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale after successfully winning a property dispute. At the heart of this case lies the critical distinction between ministerial duties—actions a public official must perform—and discretionary functions, where some judgment is allowed. The central legal question in Remollo v. Garcia is clear: Can a Clerk of Court refuse to execute a Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale after the redemption period has expired and a court order mandates its execution? The Supreme Court’s resounding answer is no, emphasizing the non-discretionary nature of this duty and the serious consequences for failing to uphold it, especially when personal bias comes into play.

LEGAL CONTEXT: MINISTERIAL DUTY DEFINED

The concept of ‘ministerial duty’ is fundamental in Philippine administrative and legal procedure. A ministerial duty is one that requires no exercise of discretion or judgment. It is a simple, straightforward task prescribed by law. In contrast, a discretionary duty involves decision-making and the application of personal judgment within legal parameters.

In the context of sheriffs and clerks of court, Rule 39, Section 33 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (formerly Section 35 of the old Rules, and cited in the case) is crucial. This rule outlines the procedure after a valid execution sale and the expiration of the redemption period. It explicitly states that if no redemption occurs within the prescribed period (then 12 months, now 1 year), the sheriff shall execute a deed of conveyance, which is the Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale.

The rule states:

“SEC. 33. Deed of conveyance to purchaser. — In case the judgment debtor redeems, the certificate of redemption shall be executed by the officer making the sale, and a copy filed with the registry of deeds of the province or city in which the property is situated. Should no redemption be made, the purchaser or his assignee shall be entitled to a conveyance and possession of the property; and, upon demand of the purchaser or assignee, and on payment of the costs and expenses therefor, the officer making the sale shall execute and deliver to him the deed of conveyance in due form. The latter shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the province or city where the property is situated.” (Emphasis added)

The use of the word “shall” is imperative, indicating a mandatory obligation. Philippine jurisprudence consistently emphasizes that sheriffs and clerks of court, when performing execution duties, act ministerially. They are agents of the law, not of any party involved. This principle ensures impartiality and prevents abuse of power. Previous Supreme Court decisions, such as Evangelista v. Penserga, have affirmed this ministerial nature, reinforcing that sheriffs must follow the law without personal interpretation or compromise.

CASE BREAKDOWN: REMOLLO VS. GARCIA

The saga began with Civil Case No. 5221, a property dispute won by Edgar Remollo’s parents against Julio Garcia (brother-in-law of respondent Atty. Thelma Garcia) and his wife. After the judgment became final in 1985, forty-three parcels of land owned by the Garcias were sold at public auction to satisfy the judgment debt. The Remollo heirs, including Edgar, were the highest bidders. A Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale was issued in 1986, and the redemption period was set to expire on October 27, 1989.

Enter Atty. Thelma Garcia, who became Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff. Despite the expired redemption period, she refused to execute the Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale. Her justification? Allegedly, some Remollo heirs were negotiating redemption with the Garcia heirs (her nephews and nieces) and partial payments were being made. However, Edgar Remollo and his sister Rosario Habaña were not part of this agreement and insisted on the Deed of Sale.

Here’s a timeline of Atty. Garcia’s actions and the ensuing legal battles:

• October 27, 1989: Redemption period expires. Atty. Garcia refuses to execute the Final Deed of Sale.
• June 11, 1990: Atty. Garcia inexplicably issues a Certificate of Redemption, even though the period had lapsed, and falsely claims authority from the judgment creditors.
• December 20, 1991: Garcia heirs attempt to register the Certificate of Redemption, but it is denied by the Register of Deeds.
• 1991: Edgar and Rosario Remollo file a mandamus case (Civil Case No. 10109) and an administrative case (A.M. No. P-92-722) to compel Atty. Garcia to execute the Deed of Sale.
• September 14, 1992: The administrative case is provisionally dismissed pending the mandamus case outcome.
• June 26, 1996: The Court of Appeals rules in favor of the Remollos in the mandamus case (CA-G.R. SP-34649), ordering Atty. Garcia to execute the Deed of Sale within 30 days.
• March 5, 1997: Only after the refiled administrative complaint and the CA order, Atty. Garcia finally executes a Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale, but with a problematic ‘rider’ favoring the Garcia heirs.

Despite the Court of Appeals’ clear order, Atty. Garcia’s eventual Deed of Sale included a clause where other Remollo siblings supposedly waived their rights, a condition not mandated by the court and further complicating the matter. The Supreme Court was unequivocal in its condemnation of Atty. Garcia’s actions. Justice Bellosillo, writing for the Court, stated:

“From the records it is clear that respondent was not simply remiss or neglectful of her duties as Ex Officio Provincial Sheriff. On the contrary, and in fact, she intentionally refused to execute a Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale…“

The Court further emphasized the impropriety of her actions, stating:

“In this case, respondent not only refused to perform a specific duty imposed upon her, but favored the heirs of the judgment debtors (her nephews and nieces) further by executing a Certificate of Redemption on 11 June 1990 some eight (8) months after the period for redemption had already expired… Worse, respondent falsely stated in the Certificate of Redemption that she was reconveying the subject parcels of land to the heirs of the judgment debtors ‘with authority of the plaintiff judgment creditor(s)’ when complainant Edgar Remollo and his sister Rosario Habaña… never gave her such authority…“

The Supreme Court found Atty. Garcia guilty of gross misconduct, highlighting the blatant bias and intentional disregard for her ministerial duty. Although she had compulsorily retired, the Court imposed a fine of P30,000.00 to be deducted from her retirement benefits.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: UPHOLDING IMPARTIALITY IN JUDICIAL DUTIES

Remollo v. Garcia serves as a stark warning to all court personnel, particularly those with ministerial duties. It reinforces the principle that personal biases and familial relationships must never interfere with the impartial execution of legal mandates. For clerks of court and sheriffs, this case underscores the following:

• Strict Adherence to Ministerial Duties: There is no room for discretion or personal interpretation when performing ministerial functions like executing a Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale after the redemption period has lapsed.
• Impartiality is Paramount: Personal relationships with parties involved in a case must not influence official actions. Favoring relatives constitutes gross misconduct.
• Consequences of Misconduct: Refusal to perform ministerial duties, especially when motivated by bias, can lead to severe administrative penalties, including fines and even dismissal from service (as seen in similar cases cited by the Court).

For individuals and businesses involved in court cases, especially those concerning execution and property sales, this case offers crucial lessons:

• Know Your Rights: Judgment creditors have the right to demand the execution of a Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale after the redemption period. Do not be deterred by delays or refusals.
• Persistence is Key: As Edgar Remollo’s experience shows, persistence in pursuing legal remedies, including mandamus actions and administrative complaints, is often necessary to ensure court officials fulfill their duties.
• Document Everything: Maintain meticulous records of all communications, deadlines, and actions taken by court officials. This documentation is vital for pursuing legal and administrative remedies if necessary.

Key Lessons from Remollo v. Garcia:

• Ministerial duties are mandatory: Public officials must perform them as prescribed by law, without discretion.
• Bias is unacceptable: Personal interests and relationships must not influence official actions.
• Accountability is crucial: Court officials are accountable for dereliction of duty and misconduct, even after retirement.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

1. What is a ministerial duty of a Clerk of Court or Sheriff?

A ministerial duty is a task that a public official is legally obligated to perform in a prescribed manner, without exercising personal judgment or discretion. Executing a Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale after the redemption period is a prime example.

2. What happens if a Clerk of Court refuses to perform a ministerial duty?

Refusal to perform a ministerial duty can lead to administrative charges for dereliction of duty or misconduct. As seen in Remollo v. Garcia, penalties can include fines, suspension, or even dismissal. Legal remedies like mandamus can also be pursued to compel the official to act.

3. What is a Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale?

It is a legal document executed by the Sheriff (or Clerk of Court acting as Ex-Officio Sheriff) after a property is sold at public auction and the redemption period has expired without the judgment debtor redeeming the property. It transfers ownership to the purchaser.

4. What is the redemption period after a foreclosure or execution sale in the Philippines?

For judicial foreclosures and execution sales, the redemption period is generally one year from the date of registration of the Certificate of Sale.

5. Can the redemption period be extended?

Legally, no, not unilaterally by the parties after it has expired. Any agreement to extend redemption must be made and fulfilled within the original period. Agreements after the period are generally viewed as new contracts to repurchase, not redemption.

6. What recourse do I have if a Sheriff or Clerk of Court is delaying the execution of a Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale?

You can file a Petition for Mandamus in court to compel the official to perform their ministerial duty. You can also file an administrative complaint for dereliction of duty or misconduct with the Office of the Court Administrator.

7. How can personal bias affect the performance of official duties in court?

Personal bias, as illustrated in Remollo v. Garcia, can lead to unfair and illegal actions. It undermines the integrity of the judicial system and erodes public trust. Public officials are expected to be impartial and uphold the law, regardless of personal relationships.

8. Is retirement a shield against administrative liability for misconduct committed while in service?

No. As Remollo v. Garcia shows, even if an official retires, they can still be held administratively liable for misconduct committed during their tenure. Penalties, like fines, can be deducted from retirement benefits.

ASG Law specializes in litigation and civil law, including property disputes and execution of judgments. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.