ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1901-P. February 28, 2005]

SISON vs. FLORENDO

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 28 2005.

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1901-P (Joseph Peter S. Sison vs. Sheriff IV Cristobal Florendo.)

This treats of the letter-complaint dated April 12, 2004 filed by Joseph Peter S. Sison (Sison), Officer-in-Charge, National Housing Authority (NHA), charging Mr. Cristobal C. Florendo (Florendo), Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority/ Function.

It appears that on February 18, 2004, the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) issued a Writ of Execution ordering the implementation of its decision in CIAC Case No. 14-2003 entitled First United Constructors Corporation (FUCC) v. NHA , which involves a net award of P261,732,205.04 in favor of FUCC and against the NHA.

Sison alleges that by implementing the writ, Florendo violated Supreme Court Circular No. 10-2000 (The Exercise of Utmost Caution, Prudence and Judiciousness in the Issuance of Writs of Execution to Satisfy Money Judgments Against Government Agencies and Local Government Units) and Presidential Decree No. 1445 (The Government Auditing Code of the Philippines). It is Sison's position that Florendo should have first pursued the money judgment with the COA rather than going directly against the NHA.

Sison further claims that Florendo proceeded to indiscriminately garnish NHA's bank deposits and levy its various personal properties in violation of the principle that government funds which are devoted to a particular purpose cannot be used for other purposes.

Florendo filed a letter-comment dated May 14, 2004, arguing that he merely complied with the Rules of Court and discharged his duty as Sheriff in accordance with the tenor of the Writ of Execution issued by the CIAC. He points out that he cannot be held liable for violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 10-2000 considering that NHA's funds are not exempt from garnishment or execution. The Circular allegedly applies only to municipal corporations or local government units and other agencies performing governmental functions. It does not apply to the NHA which is a government owned or controlled corporation (GOCC).

The Office of the Court Administrator recommends the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.

We agree.

It is well-settled that the sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ issued by a court is purely ministerial. When, a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate. He is supposed to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter. (Araza v. Garcia, A.M. No. P-00-1363, February 8, 2000, 325 SCRA 1)

Moreover, the NHA is a GOCC with a personality distinct and separate from that of the Government. As such, its funds and properties may be garnished, attached or levied upon. (PNR v. CA, No. L-55347, October 4, 1985, 139 SCRA 87)

WHEREFORE, the instant complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE