Case Digest: MIRAMAR FISH CO. INC. v. BIENVENIDO JALON, et al.

MIRAMAR FISH CO. INC. v. BIENVENIDO JALON, et al.

474 SCRA 22 (2005), THIRD DIVISION

Sheriffs III Bienvenido F. Jalon, Danilo T. Han, and Candido J. Abrera (Jalon, et al.) enforced a writ of execution of the decision of the Court in “Mar Fishing Company Inc. v. Court of Appeals, National Federation of Labor NFWU-NFL, et al.,” ordering Mar Fishing Company, Inc. (Mar Fishing) to reinstate its dismissed employees to their former positions and to pay them full backwages or, if reinstatement is no longer possible, to pay them separation pay, and to pay attorney‘s fees equivalent to 10% of the total amount awarded. Jalon et al. in enforcement of the writ of execution, issued a Notice of Levy upon realty attaching real properties of Mar Fishing and five (5) motor vehicles registered in the name of Mar Fishing. The vehicles had, however, been priorly conveyed to Trade and Investment Development Corporation (TIDCORP) and subsequently sold by the latter to Miramar Fish Co., Inc. (Miramar).

Consequently, Miramar charged Jalon et.al. to have committed grave abuse of authority in attaching the vehicles the value of which exceeded One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos despite their awareness that they were no longer owned by Mar Fishing and that the award sought to be satisfied amounted to less than half a million pesos only. Jalon et al., however, jointly asserted that they were only performing their lawful duty “with reasonable diligence and with reasonable promptness.” The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) finds that while Jalon et.al., did not err in attaching the personal properties registered in the name of the judgment obligor Mar Fishing, they appear to have failed to observe the proper procedure in the enforcement of execution of judgments for money as laid down in Section 9, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was grave abuse of authority in attaching the properties of Miramar the value of which exceeded the award sought to be satisfied and despite their awareness that they were no longer owned by Mar Fishing

HELD:

The procedure for the enforcement of judgment for money is self-explanatory. Yet, Jalon et al. not only do not claim to have first demanded from judgment obligor Mar Fishing the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution – a total of P401,783.35 – and all lawful fees. They are completely silent on why they first levied upon real property, instead of personal property, and why properties said to be valued at millions of pesos had been levied when the judgment obligation was only more than P400,000.00.

Jalon et al. rendered nugatory the option given the judgment obligor to choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon by a mere claim of expediency in the execution of judgments. While the expeditious and efficient execution of court orders and writs is commendable, it should not, under any circumstance, be done by departing from the Rules governing the same.