G.R. No. P-1549 November 17, 1980
Raul C. Briz, petitioner, vs. Faustino Encinares, Jr. and Glicerio Lumuthang, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Raul C. Briz filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriffs Faustino Encinares, Jr. and Glicerio Lumuthang of the Court of First Instance of Davao del Norte for oppression, dishonesty, and incompetence. The charges stemmed from the enforcement of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 500-D, where the judgment debtor was Camilo Briz, the complainant’s father. The complainant alleged that on November 27, 1975, the respondents levied upon his passenger jeep, which was parked and ready for departure, despite him not being a party to the case and without showing any legal authority. The jeep was later sold at public auction to the judgment creditor for a price deemed shockingly low.
Furthermore, the complainant charged dishonesty, alleging that on October 23, 1976, the respondents demanded and received P500 from his father, promising not to levy on his real properties, but proceeded to levy and attach them anyway when the remaining demanded amount was not paid. The respondents denied all charges, asserting they acted within legal bounds in executing the writ against the properties of the judgment debtor, Camilo Briz.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Deputy Sheriffs Faustino Encinares, Jr. and Glicerio Lumuthang are administratively liable for the acts complained of.

RULING

Yes, the respondents are administratively liable for incompetence and grave abuse of authority amounting to oppression and misconduct, but not for dishonesty. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Deputy Court Administrator, which were based on the report of the Investigating Judge. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the charges of oppression and incompetence. The act of levying upon the complainant’s jeep, despite a third-party claim and the availability of other unencumbered properties of the judgment debtor sufficient to satisfy the judgment, constituted a grave abuse of authority. The Investigating Judge noted the levied jeep was sold at a “surprisingly very low and shocking” price, and the respondents’ choice to target a property with an ownership dispute, when alternatives existed, demonstrated incompetence and oppressive conduct in the execution of their duties.
Regarding the charge of dishonesty, the Court concurred with the Investigating Judge’s finding that it was not substantiated by sufficient evidence. Consequently, the respondents were exonerated on this specific charge. The Court emphasized that sheriffs, as officers of the court, must discharge their duties with competence and integrity, avoiding any act of oppression or abuse of authority that undermines public confidence in the administration of justice. The penalty of suspension from office for one month without pay was imposed, with a stern warning that a repetition of similar infractions would be dealt with more severely.