CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ TA-OCTA VS. SHERIFF EGUIA, A.M. NO. P-02-1568, 25 APRIL 2002

TA-OCTA VS. SHERIFF EGUIA,

A.M. NO. P-02-1568, 25 APRIL 2002

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 provides among others: "The Executive Judge shall, with the assistance of the Clerk of Court, raffle applications for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage under the direction of the sheriff among all sheriffs, including those assigned to the Office of the Clerk of Court and Sheriffs IV assigned in the branches.”

FACTS

Complainant Ta-Octa charged respondents sheriffs Eguia and Torres with grave abuse of authority in connection with a petition for foreclosure of chattel mortgage instituted by AC Lenders, against the complainant for the latter’s failure to comply with the conditions of the chattel mortgage and promissory note. The chattel mortgage covered a one unit motor vehicle. Ta-octa alleged among others that the petition for foreclosure of chattel mortgage had been served by the respondents on the same day it was filed with the Office of the Provincial/City Sherriff of Iloilo, without any raffle being first conducted and without approval of the trial court. Respondents averred that they had complied with the procedure for extrajudicial foreclosures of mortgages. However, admitted that the petition was immediately served, without a raffle having first been conducted because of the fear, entertained by AC Lenders, Inc., that complainant might abscond.

The Executive Judge conducted an investigation pursuant to Administrative Order No. 6, and found respondents Guilty for violation of Administrative Circular No. 3-98, and Administrative Order No. 3, which mandates the raffling of extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage shall be strictly enforced by the Executive Judge among the deputy sheriffs in order to avoid an unequal distribution of cases and fraternization between sheriffs and the applicant mortgagee."

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent sheriffs erred in conducting the extrajudicial foreclosure without any raffle being first conducted and without approval of the trial court.

RULING

Yes.

The court held that A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 provides among others: "The Executive Judge shall, with the assistance of the Clerk of Court, raffle applications for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage under the direction of the sheriff among all sheriffs, including those assigned to the Office of the Clerk of Court and Sheriffs IV assigned in the branches.”

Here, the court held that respondent sheriffs have violated the procedure set forth in A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 in failing to conduct a raffle of the petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage filed by AC Lenders, Inc., against complainant before the office of the Clerk of Court.  The raffling of cases is designed to avoid the unequal distribution of cases and fraternization between the sheriff and the applicant-mortgagee. While it might be true that petitioner (AC Iloilo Lenders Inc.) requested for the immediate enforcement of the petition for foreclosure of chattel mortgage on the ground that complainant could likely flee and abscond with his assets and that, in fact, the subject vehicle was recovered from the house of one of his relatives, respondents, nevertheless, were not excused from observing the mandated procedure therefor.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BALA V. MARTINEZ, 181 SCRA 459