Morales v. Tarongoy

A.M. No. P-94-1032 (January 18, 1996)

Deputy Sheriff Tarongoy dismissed for misconduct over excessive fees and wrongful property seizure.

Facts:

Felicidad V. Morales filed a complaint against Deputy Sheriff Julio G. Tarongoy for Grave Misconduct and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) in relation to the execution of a final judgment from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC had rendered a decision on January 27, 1992, in favor of Morales, ordering her employer to pay her and a co-employee a total of P190,254.00. After the employer failed to comply with the judgment, Labor Arbiter Dominador Almirante issued an alias writ of execution, directing the Provincial Sheriff to collect the amount owed or to levy the employer's non-exempt properties.

Morales personally delivered the writ of execution to the Regional Trial Court in Pagadian City. Upon doing so, Deputy Sheriff Tarongoy demanded a fee of P15,000.00 for executing the writ. Lacking the full amount, Morales borrowed part of the fee to facilitate the execution. Subsequently, Tarongoy levied two parcels of real property owned by the employer. However, just three days before the scheduled auction sale, Tarongoy informed Morales that she needed to post a bond because the properties were mortgaged. Morales contested the levy, noting that there were other unencumbered properties owned by the employer that could have been levied instead.

The Court required Tarongoy to comment on the complaint, but he failed to respond to two separate resolutions from the Court. The Office of the Court Administrator later evaluated the case and found that Tarongoy's failure to comply with the Court's directives indicated an admission of the charges against him. The evaluation also highlighted that the properties levied were mortgaged for amounts significantly exceeding the judgment amount, rendering the levy ineffective.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether Deputy Sheriff Julio G. Tarongoy committed Grave Misconduct in the execution of the writ of execution.
  2. Whether Tarongoy violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by demanding a fee for the execution of the writ without proper justification.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner (Morales): Morales argued that Tarongoy's actions constituted Grave Misconduct as he levied mortgaged properties without verifying their encumbrances and failed to consider other unencumbered properties. She contended that his demand for a fee was unjustified and that his inaction in responding to the Court's resolutions demonstrated a disregard for his duties.

  • Respondent (Tarongoy): Tarongoy did not present any arguments or defenses, as he failed to comply with the Court's directives to comment on the complaint. His lack of response was interpreted as an admission of the charges against him.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Court found Deputy Sheriff Tarongoy guilty of Grave Misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service. The Court emphasized that Tarongoy's failure to respond to the Court's resolutions indicated a blatant disregard for his responsibilities. The Court noted that the properties he levied were encumbered by substantial mortgages, which rendered the levy ineffective given that the judgment amount was significantly lower than the mortgage obligations. The Court also highlighted that Tarongoy had previously been found negligent in another case, which compounded the severity of his current misconduct.

The Court concluded that Tarongoy's actions not only violated the procedural requirements for executing a writ but also demonstrated a lack of prudence and diligence expected from a sheriff. His demand for a fee without proper justification further constituted a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. Grave Misconduct: The case underscores the importance of diligence and prudence in the execution of judicial orders by sheriffs, emphasizing that failure to verify property encumbrances can lead to grave misconduct findings.
  2. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: The case illustrates the application of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in the context of public officials demanding fees without proper authority or justification.
  3. Non-compliance with Court Orders: The failure to comply with court directives can be interpreted as an admission of guilt, reinforcing the obligation of public officials to adhere to judicial processes.