Lirio v. Ramos

A.M. No. P-96-1227 Formerly (October 11, 1996)

Sheriff Arturo Ramos was suspended for one month for grave misconduct in property attachment.

Facts:

On March 30, 1995, Lilia T. Aaron filed a complaint for "Specific Performance and Damages with Consignation, Preliminary Attachment and Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order" against Renato L. Lirio and his wife in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 95-521 in Branch 66. Following an ex-parte hearing on April 6, 1995, the court issued an order for a preliminary writ of attachment, stating that the defendant appeared to be guilty of fraud in contracting the obligation. The order allowed for the attachment of the defendant's property valued at approximately P11,382,000.00, contingent upon the plaintiff posting a bond of P1,000,000.00.

On April 10, 1995, after the bond was posted, the court issued a writ of preliminary attachment, commanding Sheriff Arturo A. Ramos to attach the estate, real and personal, of the defendants. However, on April 11, 1995, instead of attaching the property covered by the case (TCT No. 149433), Ramos levied on properties covered by TCT Nos. 183949 and 199480, which the complainant claimed were residential properties with a total value of P30 million. The sheriff justified his actions by stating that he was following the plaintiff's instructions, who advised him not to attach the property already covered by a temporary restraining order.

The complainant filed a motion to exclude the attached properties and to hold the sheriff in contempt of court. The trial court granted the motion to exclude the properties but denied the contempt motion. Aaron subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition, affirming that the sheriff had acted beyond the court's order by attaching properties not specified in the writ.

In response to the administrative complaint filed against him, Sheriff Ramos admitted to the attachment but argued that it was common practice for plaintiffs to provide information on the properties to be attached. He claimed that the order did not explicitly limit the attachment to the property covered by TCT No. 149433 and that he believed he was acting within his authority.

Legal Issues:

  1. Did Sheriff Ramos commit grave misconduct and acts highly inimical to the judiciary by failing to comply with the court's order regarding the attachment of properties?
  2. Was the sheriff's action of attaching properties not specified in the court's order a violation of the Rules of Court?

Arguments:

  • Complainant's Argument: The complainant argued that the sheriff acted beyond his authority by attaching properties not specified in the court's order. He cited the case of Gruenberg vs. Court of Appeals, asserting that only the property under litigation should have been attached. The complainant maintained that the sheriff's actions were illegal and constituted grave misconduct.

  • Respondent's Argument: Sheriff Ramos contended that it was common practice for plaintiffs to inform sheriffs about the properties to be attached. He claimed that the order did not explicitly limit the attachment to the property covered by TCT No. 149433 and that he believed he was acting in accordance with the court's directives. He argued that he did not commit any misconduct.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court found that Sheriff Ramos had indeed failed to comply with the court's order regarding the attachment of properties. The court emphasized that the sheriff's duty was to execute the order of attachment as specified, which limited the levy to the property covered by TCT No. 149433. By attaching other properties, the sheriff acted beyond his authority and violated the Rules of Court.

The court noted that the sheriff's actions were not only irregular but also illegal, as he effectively amended the court's order without legal authority. The court highlighted that the sheriff's role is ministerial, and he must adhere strictly to the court's directives. The court also pointed out that the sheriff's failure to determine the value of the properties attached and his neglect of the prescribed rules on attachment constituted dereliction of duty.

Ultimately, the court suspended Sheriff Ramos from office for one month for neglect or dereliction of duty, emphasizing the importance of accountability and adherence to the rule of law in the administration of justice.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. Ministerial Duty of Sheriffs: Sheriffs are required to execute court orders strictly as issued, without altering or amending them.
  2. Limits of Attachment: The attachment of properties must be confined to those specified in the court's order, and any deviation constitutes a violation of the Rules of Court.
  3. Accountability of Public Officers: Public officers, including sheriffs, must act with utmost responsibility and integrity, as their actions significantly impact public trust in the judiciary.