SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. L-13031           January 7, 1919
AMALIA MORENO vs. LEON REYES, ET AL. -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-13031 January 7, 1919

AMALIA MORENO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEON REYES, NEMESIO REYES, ANDRES GARCHITORENA, AND CASIMIRO NATIVIDAD, Defendants-Appellants.

Delgado & Delgado fort appellants.
Manly, Goddard & Lockwood for appellee.

JOHNSON, J.:

This is an action to recover of the defendant Leon Reyes, as sheriff of the Province of Ambos Camarines, and his bondsmen, his codefendants, the sum of P5,796.66, together with damages. The facts upon which the action is based have been agreed upon. They are simple and may be stated as follows: (1) In the year 1909 the said Leon Reyes was acting in the capacity of sheriff in the Province of Ambos Camarines. (2) As said sheriff, by virtue of an execution duly issued by the court, Leon Reyes, levied and sold certain real estate belonging to Amalia Moreno. (3) That said sale, Amalia Moreno, in order to redeem the land sold, delivered to Leon Reyes, and took a receipt therefore, the sum of P5,796.66; that said sum was delivered in the months of June and July, 1909; that later, by reason of facts which it is unnecessary here to restate, it was decided that Amalia Moreno was not entitled to redeem said land; that thereupon, Amalia Moreno made a demand upon Leon Reyes, as sheriff, for a return of said sum of money, which demand was refused. (4) That by reason of the refusal and failure of Leon Reyes to return the said sum of money, the present action was instituted upon the 13th day of November, 1915, in the Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines, against Leon Reyes, as sheriff of said province, and his codefendants who were his bondsmen, for the purpose of recovering the sum of P5,796.66, together with the damages.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The lower court, after consideration of the stipulated facts, rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the sum of P5,796.66, with legal interest from the date of the commencement of the present action. From that judgment the defendant appealed to this court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The money in question was received by Leon Reyes, as sheriff. It was received by him by virtue of his office, as sheriff. It was his duty, as sheriff, to faithfully account for said money. If the sheriff, as such, receives money for which he has no right to retain, it is his official duty to return the same. For the faithful performance of his duty, Leon Reyes gave a bond, with his codefendants as sureties, by which he, with them, became jointly and severally liable to all persons in interest for all moneys and property coming into his hands as such sheriff, etc. And the expiration of his term of office does not relieve him and them from that responsibility. (Williams vs. Grundysen, 55 N.W. Rep., 567; Lamar vs. McCulloch, 115 U.S., 163; U.S. vs. Nicholl, Wheat. [U.S.], 505; 25 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law, pp. 722,725; 35 Cyc., 1910; Heppe vs. Johnson, 73 Cal., 265.)chanrobles virtual law library

After an examination of the stipulated facts in relation with the bond which the defendants gave and the law applicable to the liability of sheriffs under such facts, we find no reason or justification for modifying or altering the judgment of the lower court. The same, is therefore hereby affirmed, with cost. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Torres, Street, Malcolm and Avanceña, JJ., concur.