This case clarifies the duty of a sheriff when enforcing a writ of execution on property claimed by a third party. The Supreme Court ruled that a sheriff is not obligated to determine ownership of contested property. Instead, the sheriff must follow the procedure outlined in Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court, which involves requiring the judgment creditor to post an indemnity bond to protect the third-party claimant. If the creditor posts a bond, the sheriff can proceed with the execution, and the third-party claimant’s recourse is to pursue a separate action against the creditor.

When a Vehicle Levy Sparks a Dispute: Examining a Sheriff’s Role in Third-Party Claims

This case stems from an administrative complaint filed by Nelda Apostol against Sheriff Junie Jovencio Ipac of the Regional Trial Court in Malolos City. The dispute arose when Sheriff Ipac levied a Toyota Corolla, which Apostol claimed she owned, to satisfy a judgment against CWB Plastics Corporation. Apostol presented a Certificate of Registration and a Deed of Absolute Sale, both in her name, but Sheriff Ipac proceeded with the levy, suspecting a fraudulent transfer to avoid CWB’s obligations. The central legal question is whether Sheriff Ipac acted properly in levying the vehicle despite Apostol’s third-party claim of ownership.

The facts reveal that Silver Spirit Plastics, Inc. won an ejectment case against CWB Plastics Corporation, resulting in a monetary judgment. When the writ of execution was served, CWB transferred ownership of the vehicle to Apostol, its secretary/accountant. This occurred after the service of the writ of execution. Sheriff Ipac, upon encountering Apostol’s claim, demanded that Silver Spirit post an indemnity bond, which they did. He then proceeded with the public auction of the vehicle. Apostol argued that Sheriff Ipac should have filed a case to nullify her Certificate of Registration, but the Supreme Court disagreed.

Building on this principle, the Court referenced Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court, which outlines the procedure when property is claimed by a third person:

SEC. 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person. – If the property levied on is claimed by any person other than the judgment obligor or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer making the levy and a copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment obligee, on demand of the officer, files a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on. In case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be determined by the court issuing the writ of execution. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefore is filed within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond.

The Court emphasized that a sheriff’s duty in executing a writ is purely ministerial, meaning they must follow the court’s orders. When a third-party claim arises, the sheriff’s role is to protect themselves from liability by requiring the judgment creditor to post a bond. The indemnity bond serves to protect the third-party claimant, giving them recourse against the bond should the levy and sale proceed. This approach contrasts with the sheriff needing to determine the validity of the third-party claim.

In this specific case, Sheriff Ipac fulfilled his duty by demanding and obtaining the indemnity bond from Silver Spirit. Therefore, the Court held that Apostol’s remedy was to pursue a separate action against Silver Spirit to assert her ownership claim, instead of holding the sheriff liable. Her recourse lies against the bond. Her legal challenge to the levy should target the creditor who obtained the levy rather than the sheriff implementing the court’s order.

The administrative complaint also alleged that Sheriff Ipac failed to note the third-party claim on the Certificate of Sale. The Supreme Court dismissed this allegation. The records revealed that another sheriff, not Ipac, issued the Certificate of Sale; therefore, he could not be held responsible for its contents. It follows that the responsibility lies with that specific officer to observe such provision under the Rules.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the sheriff acted improperly in levying a vehicle despite a third-party claim of ownership.
What does “ministerial duty” mean for a sheriff?	A ministerial duty means a sheriff must follow the court’s orders precisely, without discretion to interpret or question them.
What is an indemnity bond in this context?	An indemnity bond protects a third-party claimant if a sheriff proceeds with levying and selling contested property. It covers damages the claimant may suffer.
What should a sheriff do when a third-party claim is made?	The sheriff should demand the judgment creditor post a bond to indemnify the third-party claimant. Once the bond is posted, the sheriff can continue with the levy.
What recourse does a third-party claimant have?	The third-party claimant can file a separate action against the judgment creditor to assert their ownership or rights over the property.
Was the sheriff required to file a case to nullify the claimant’s registration?	No, the sheriff was not required to file a case to nullify the claimant’s registration. The claimant must make the claim for ownership against the bond provided by the creditor.
Who should note the third-party claim on the Certificate of Sale?	The sheriff who issues the Certificate of Sale is responsible for noting the existence of any third-party claim.
What was the court’s final decision in this case?	The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Sheriff Ipac, finding he had fulfilled his duties correctly.

In conclusion, this case underscores the importance of following established procedures when enforcing writs of execution, especially when third-party claims arise. It highlights the sheriff’s limited role and the availability of remedies for third-party claimants to protect their property rights.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Nelda Apostol v. Junie Jovencio Ipac, A.M. No. P-04-1865, July 28, 2005