Case Digest: NELDA APOSTOL v. JUNIE JOVENIO IPAC

NELDA APOSTOL v. JUNIE JOVENIO IPAC

A.M. No.P-04-1865, 28 July 2005

Writ of execution, as a rule, may only be effected against the property of the judgment debtor, who must necessarily be a party to the case, and a sheriff who levies upon property other than that of the judgment debtor’s acts beyond the limits of his authority.

Nelda Apostol filed a complaint against Junie Jovencio G. Ipac, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City for grave abuse of authority. In a civil case, the RTC of Malolos rendered judgment against CWB Plastic Corporation and directed the issuance of a writ of execution. Assigned to implement the said writ was Ipac.

Subsequently, Ipac served on CWB a Notice of Levy on Execution of its properties. Consequently, Ipac took possession of a Toyota Corolla. Apostol, however, claims that she owns the said vehicle. The ownership was transferred to Apostol by CWB. Apostol charged Ipac with grave abuse of authority. Ipac contends that the ownership of vehicle is fictitious and was designed to defraud CWB’s creditor. Ipac likewise contends that Apostol should proceed against the indemnity bond posted by Silver Spirit.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its report, found that Ipac gravely erred in implementing the writ of execution by levying on the vehicle despite the claim of ownership of Apostol as evidence by a certificate of registration over it; that it was not within Ipac’s authority as sheriff to ignore Apostol’s claim over the vehicle as Ipac did not have any discretion to determine who among the parties was entitled to the possession of it.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ipac gravely abused his authority by levying on the vehicle allegedly owned by Apostol

HELD:

The rule is that execution may only be effected against the property of judgment debtor, who must necessarily be a party to the case, and sheriff who levies upon property other than that of judgment debtor’s acts beyond the limits of his authority.

When Ipac levied and took possession of the vehicle, however, he relied on the Official Receipt covering the payment of registration fees in the name of CWB.

Complainant being a secretary/accountant of CWB, it can reasonably be inferred that she was aware of the case for ejectment filed against CWB et al. by Silver Spirit and the developments thereon. It is in this light that this Court finds well-founded Ipac’s doubts on the motive behind the transfer to her by her employer CWB of its ownership of the vehicle by a Deed of Sale, after the Writ of Execution of the decision had been served upon CWB.

A sheriff’s duty in execution of a writ issued by a court is purely ministerial. When he levies on a property, which is claimed by one other than the judgment obligor, Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court directs him to observe such procedure.