By virtue of a writ of execution issued by the City Court of Manila, Branch VIII, in its civil case 179318, the above-named respondent, Eulalio C. Juanson, Deputy Sheriff of Rizal, levied upon certain chattels which he found in the residence of the judgment-debtor, Eugenio Guevarra, and subsequently set the public auction thereof for May 31, 1972. However, the complainants, the spouses Alfonso Guevarra and Clarissa Victoriano, and the spouses Ambrosio Trias and Eloisa Pinzon on May 26, 1972 filed a replevin suit with the City Court of Cavite, docketed therein as civil case 1514, for recovery of the said personal properties. Whereupon the respondent Juanson reset the auction sale for July 3, 1972.
On June 22, 1972 the City Court of Cavite dismissed the replevin suit; on June 29 the complainants (therein plaintiffs) moved to reconsider, notifying the defendants' counsel that the motion for reconsideration would be submitted on July 11, 1972 for the court's action; they likewise filed with the office of the Provincial Sheriff at Makati, Rizal (not with a court) a motion to suspend the sale until the Cavite court shall have resolved their motion for reconsideration. (Annex L, rollo, p. 55)
Because the respondent sheriff received no restraining order, he proceeded with the auction sale on July 3, 1972. On July 12, 1972 the court denied reconsideration of the order dismissing the replevin suit. For thus selling the personal properties without awaiting resolution of the motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal, the respondent sheriff is now charged in the present administrative complaint with grave abuse of authority and negligence in the performance of his duties.
The facts recited above do not make out a case against the respondent, and, in view of the subsequent denial of their motion for reconsideration, the complainants suffered no prejudice resulting from the auction sale on July 3, 1972. The respondent did not abuse his authority and neglected none of his duties. At the time he sold the properties by virtue of the Manila court's writ of execution, notwithstanding the pendency of the motion for reconsideration in the Cavite court, there was no legal impediment to the scheduled sale, the complainants having failed to obtain an order enjoining or suspending the sale. Still, as a precautionary measure, it would have been the better part of prudence had the respondent, before proceeding with the auction sale, (1) first checked with the Cavite court what action, if any, had been taken on the complainants' motion for reconsideration and (2) also inquired from the Manila court whether a motion to suspend the sale had been filed or not and the action taken thereon, if any.
ACCORDINGLY, the respondent sheriff is exonerated of the charges and the complaint is hereby dismissed.
Makasiar, Esguerra, Muņoz Palma and Martin, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., is on leave.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
