G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-03-1721; September 30, 2004 (Formerly A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 02-1361-P)
Case Title: ENGR. HERBERT MALMIS, complainant, vs. JEROME PAUL BUNGABONG, Sheriff IV, RTC of Bohol, Branch 47, respondent.

FACTS

The administrative case originated from a petition filed by Engr. Herbert Malmis against Sheriff Jerome Paul Bungabong for dereliction of duty concerning Civil Case No. 5170 for collection of a sum of money. Complainant alleged that on February 24, 1999, respondent sheriff levied a parcel of land under TCT No. 33686 and sold it at public auction on December 12, 2000, with complainant as the highest bidder. A certificate of sale was issued and registered on January 8, 2001, stating the redemption period expired one year from registration. Complainant claimed respondent failed to issue the final deed of sale after the redemption period expired, despite two reminder letters from complainant’s counsel. Respondent replied only after the second letter, stating the trial court advised him not to issue the final deed.
Respondent contended he learned of the judgment in Civil Case No. 5170 only upon receiving the Writ of Execution, pursuant to which he levied and sold the property. However, before the redemption period expired, he discovered another case involving the same property pending before RTC, Branch 2, Bohol. He found that Laurito Malinao claimed the lot and had filed a petition to cancel the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the title. The RTC dismissed the petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, directing the cancellation of TCT No. 33686 and issuance of a new title in Malinao’s name, and annulling the lis pendens annotation. This CA decision became final and executory on June 13, 1998. Respondent denied negligence, explaining he was in a quandary over issuing the final deed due to the CA decision and sought verbal advice from his presiding judge, who told him not to issue it.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Jerome Paul Bungabong is administratively liable for dereliction of duty for failing to issue a certificate of final sale after the redemption period, given the conflicting Court of Appeals decision awarding the same property to another person.

RULING

The Court dismissed the administrative charges but warned respondent to be more diligent. The Court noted that while sheriffs have a ministerial duty to serve writs and execute orders promptly, this duty is not without limitation. Sheriffs must act with prudence and diligence, as their actions affect the integrity of the office and administration of justice. In this case, respondent was informed of a prior CA decision that had become final and executory, awarding the same property to Laurito Malinao, which placed him in a dilemma. The Court found that respondent should have followed the proper procedure by preparing a partial sheriff’s return to officially inform the judge of the situation and await instructions, as held in Mamanteo vs. Magumun. His failure to do so constituted negligence in the performance of his functions.
However, the Court also noted that respondent’s failure did not cause grave prejudice to complainant because, at the time of the auction sale in December 2000, the property had already been adjudicated to Malinao by a final CA decision since June 1998. Furthermore, complainant failed to show that respondent’s actuation was attended by bad faith or malice. Thus, adopting the OCA’s recommendation, the Court resolved to dismiss the charges but warned respondent to be more diligent in his duty.