View full case

PATERNO R. PLANTILLA v. RODRIGO G. BALIWAG

FACTS:

The case revolves around an administrative complaint filed by retired Col. Paterno R. Plantilla against Rodrigo G. Baliwag, the Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Branch 30. The complaint centers on alleged serious irregularities in the implementation of a writ of execution issued on January 16, 1998. This writ ordered the enforcement and execution of a decision, which included the payment of sums of money and attorney's fees.

According to the complainant, who was the administrator of the judgment debtors, the respondent sheriff failed to serve the writ on the defendants as required. Instead, the writ was served on the complainant himself. Additionally, the respondent sheriff unlawfully demanded payment from the complainant and proceeded to levy upon the rights and interests of the defendants in a landholding.

Furthermore, the complainant claimed that the respondent sheriff improperly specified the number of harvests per year and imposed an incorrect rate of interest. Moreover, the respondent sheriff failed to provide the defendants with notice of the auction sale and neglected to state the amount for which the landholding was levied upon in both the notice of levy and the notice of auction sale.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the sheriff's failure to provide notice of the auction sale to the defendants constitutes a violation of their rights.

  2. Whether the sheriff's failure to specify the amount for which the landholding was levied in the notice of levy and notice of auction sale is a ground for nullifying the sale.

  3. Whether the sheriff's imposition of 12% interest per annum is legal.

  4. Whether the sheriff's failure to give the defendants or the complainant the option to choose which portion of the subject land will be levied upon is a violation of the rules of execution.

  5. Whether the sale of the property at a price below its zonal value is a ground for nullifying the sale.

  6. Whether the sheriff's failure to give a copy of the notice of auction sale and to publish it in a newspaper of general circulation in Laguna violates the complainant's rights.

  7. Whether the notice of auction sale published in a newspaper of general circulation in Laguna was sufficient

  8. Whether the interest rate of 12% imposed by the respondent is valid

RULING:

  1. The sheriff's failure to provide notice of the auction sale to the defendants does not constitute a violation of their rights.

  2. The sheriff's failure to specify the amount for which the landholding was levied in the notice of levy and notice of auction sale does not nullify the sale.

  3. The imposition of 12% interest per annum by the sheriff is legal.

  4. The sheriff's failure to give the defendants or the complainant the option to choose which portion of the subject land will be levied upon is not a violation of the rules of execution.

  5. The sale of the property at a price below its zonal value does not nullify the sale.

  6. The sheriff's failure to give a copy of the notice of auction sale and to publish it in a newspaper of general circulation in Laguna does not violate the complainant's rights.

  7. The notice of auction sale published in a newspaper of general circulation in Laguna is sufficient, despite the fact that the notice was returned when mailed to the defendants-spouses in their residence in the United States. Notice to the complainant, who is the administrator of the properties, is deemed sufficient.

  8. The interest rate imposed by the respondent of 12% is invalid. The obligation to pay the unrealized share of the harvest is not a loan or forbearance of money, but is in the nature of damages for delayed payment. Therefore, the appropriate interest rate is 6%. Furthermore, the interest shall accrue only from the date of the judgment.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The sheriff's duty is to enforce the execution of a money judgment by levying on all property of the judgment debtor not exempt from execution, sufficient to satisfy the judgment. The sheriff's function in this regard is ministerial. (Section 9 (b) of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

  • The imposition of 12% interest per annum is legal in the absence of a usury law.

  • The failure to provide notice of the auction sale to the defendants does not constitute a violation of their rights, especially when there is a General Power of Attorney granting notice to the complainant.

  • The failure to specify the amount for which the landholding was levied in the notice of levy and notice of auction sale does not nullify the sale.

  • The sale of property at a price below its zonal value does not nullify the sale, absent evidence supporting inadequacy of the purchase price.

  • The failure to give a copy of the notice of auction sale and to publish it in a newspaper of general circulation in the area does not violate a party's rights, unless evidence is presented to show otherwise.

  • Notice to the complainant, as the administrator of the properties, is sufficient when the notice is returned when mailed to the defendants-spouses in their residence.

  • The interest rate imposed should be based on the nature of the obligation.

  • The interest rate should accrue only from the date of the judgment.