ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. No. P-05-2094. September 20, 2006]
LIZA SALCEDO LOFGREN v.
NONITO N. ACOSTA, JR., SHERIFF IV, RTC, BRANCH 57,
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 20, 2006.
A.M. No. P-05-2094 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-2014-P] (Liza Salcedo Lofgren v. Nonito N. Acosta, Jr., Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 57, Cebu City)
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:
In a COMPLAINT dated 21
August 2004, Lisa S. Lofgren charges Nonito N.
Acosta, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 57,
Complainant, one of the defendants in the above-mentioned civil case, avers that in a decision, the trial court, among others, cancelled the condominium certificate of title in her and her spouse'[s] name and reinstated that of the plaintiffs'. The parties were also ordered to restore various sums of money reciprocally to each other.
Complainant contends that without any prior demand to pay, respondent hastily garnished complainant's bank deposits as well as that of the hotel's. This caused the complainant and her family not only undue injury but also embarrassment. She adds that during the said period, the employees of the defendant hotel were not paid of their salaries and it also defaulted in the payment of its supplies.
Likewise, complainant avers that it was only they [defendants] who were asked by the respondent to pay, but no similar demand was made to the plaintiffs.
In a SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT, complainant adds that the subject condominium unit was sold to one Eric Raeng. However, Mr. Raeng's certificate of title to the condominium unit was cancelled without any prior payment made to the defendants in contravention of the trial court's directive dated 5 August 2004. Soon thereafter, respondent notified Mr. Raeng to vacate the condominium unit.
In his COMMENT, respondent avers that inasmuch as the decision of the trial court was already final and executory, the writ of execution was issued as a matter of course. Respondent claims that the trial court, in a later order, clarified that the plaintiffs have to pay first the amount they are obliged to restore as indicated in the decision before the complainant and her spouse'[s] title to the condominium unit can be cancelled. The order also categorically stated that Mr. Raeng is bound by the court's decision because the notice of lis pendens is annotated in his condominium certificate of title.
It was only after the plaintiffs restituted the amount they are obliged to restore pursuant to the decision that the certificate of title in Mr. Raeng's name was cancelled and the plaintiffs' title thereto was reinstated. Thereafter, respondent notified Mr. Raeng to vacate the unit, and after the former took physical possession thereof, he delivered it to the plaintiffs.
Respondent belies that he garnished the personal savings account of the complainant and her spouse. Respondent claims that as shown on the face of the notice of garnishment what was garnished was only the bank deposits of Casa Del Mar Resort Hotel. The complainant's name and that of her husband were included in the notices only to make reference to the caption of the subject civil case. At any rate, respondent subsequently clarified in a letter to the bank manager that the notices of garnishment are directed only against the accounts of the hotel.
Further, respondent avers that before the notice of garnishment was
served against the bank deposits of Casa
EVALUATION: The procedure in the execution of a final and executory judgment is provided in Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. This provision requires the sheriff first to demand of the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees. If the judgment obligor cannot fully pay the obligation in cash, he is given the option to choose which property may be levied upon. It is only when the judgment obligor does not exercise the option immediately or when he cannot be located that the sheriff may garnish bank deposits or levy on the personal or real properties of the judgment obligor.
Contrary to the allegations of the complainant, her personal savings account and that of her spouse were not garnished. The notices of garnishment addressed to the Branch Managers of Bank of the Philippine Islands and Metrobank identically read:
You are hereby notified by these presents that by virtue of an Order of WRIT OF EXECUTION issued by the Regional Trial Court of BR. 57, CEBU CITY, in the above-entitled case, copy of which is hereto attached, attachment/levy is hereby made upon all goods, effects, interests, credits, monies, stocks, shares and any other personal property/ies in your possession or under your control, belonging to the defendants in the above-entitled case, JOSE MA. CANIZARES & MARILOU CANIZARES VS. LARS LOFGREN & LIZA LOFGREN & CASA DEL MAR all debts, owing by you to said defendant(s) as of the date of the service hereof, sufficient to cover the sum of P1,630,000.00, and especially the money deposited by herein defendant(s) CASA DEL MAR RESORT HOTEL, INC. to satisfy the judgment.
Verily, what have been garnished were only the bank deposits of defendant Casa Del Mar Resort Hotel. The names of the complainant and her spouse appeared in the notices of garnishment solely for the purpose of indicating the title of the case to which said notices relates.
Likewise, we find that respondent had previously demanded from defendants, through their counsel, to comply with the court's decision. In a copy of the writ of execution attached to the complaint, it was indicated therein in a handwritten note of defendants' counsel, that it was duly received on 17 November 2003, while the notices of garnishment against the bank deposits of the hotel were served sometime July 2004 which was very much later. Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that he prematurely served the notices of garnishment because the defendants were priorly notified of the writ of execution.
Moreover, if indeed the salaries of the employees of the hotel were not paid because of the garnishment of its bank deposits, it was only a case of damnum absque injuria where no one can be held liable.
Finally, there is no indication on record showing that respondent violated Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted to this Honorable Court our recommendation that the instant administrative case against Nonito N. Acosta, Jr. be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.
This Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees of the judiciary, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. [1] cralaw
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Nonito N. Acosta, Jr. is DISMISSED for lack of merit, with a warning to complainant to be more circumspect in filing administrative cases against innocent employees of the Judiciary.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Sarmiento v. Salamat , 416 Phil. 684, 695 (2001).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
