G.R. No. RTJ-97-1369 February 17, 1997
Atty. Octavio Del Callar, complainant, vs. Judge Ignacio L. Salvador and Deputy Sheriff Angel L. Doroni, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Octavio Del Callar filed an administrative case against Judge Ignacio L. Salvador for serious misconduct, evident bad faith, and gross ignorance of the law, and against Deputy Sheriff Angel L. Doroni for gross misconduct and neglect of duty. The charges stemmed from Civil Case No. 4-92-13380. The complainant alleged that Judge Salvador issued a Special Order granting execution pending appeal without stating the “good reasons” required by the Rules of Court. This order led to the issuance of a writ of execution.
Regarding Sheriff Doroni, the complaint centered on his enforcement of the writ, which resulted in the seizure of a Toyota Land Cruiser registered in the name of Reynaldo A. Lim, the complainant’s client. Lim filed a third-party claim with supporting documents, but Sheriff Doroni refused to release the vehicle. The sheriff justified his refusal based on his personal conviction that the vehicle was conjugal property, as Lim was married to one of the defendants, Carmelita Chaneco (later Carmelita Lim), and therefore Lim was not a true third-party claimant. He insisted he needed a court order to release the property.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) Whether Judge Salvador is administratively liable for issuing the Special Order for execution pending appeal without stating “good reasons”; and (2) Whether Sheriff Doroni is administratively liable for refusing to comply with the procedure for third-party claims under the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Court ruled on the liabilities of each respondent separately. For Judge Salvador, the Court found that his Special Order granting execution pending appeal indeed violated Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that the “good reasons” for such execution must be stated in the order. This failure constituted a lapse in the exercise of due care in his judicial functions. However, for a judge to be held administratively liable for an erroneous order, the error must be gross, patent, malicious, deliberate, or in bad faith. The complainant failed to prove that the judge’s omission was attended by bad faith, bias, or gross and deliberate ignorance of the law. In the absence of such proof, the error is presumed to have been made in good faith. Consequently, Judge Salvador was merely ADMONISHED for failing to exercise the required degree of care.
For Sheriff Doroni, the Court found no administrative liability. His duty under Section 17, Rule 39, upon receipt of a third-party claim, is to notify the judgment creditor to post an indemnity bond. If the creditor posts a bond, the sheriff must proceed with the levy; if not, the sheriff must not proceed with the levy on the claimed property. The records indicated that Sheriff Doroni did notify the judgment creditor, who filed an opposition instead of a bond. Faced with a disputed claim where the claimant was the spouse of a judgment debtor, the sheriff opted to await a court resolution, a course of action the Court did not find to be a gross dereliction of duty warranting administrative sanction. Therefore, the case against him was DISMISSED for lack of merit.