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.