ASG Law

Tag: Sheriff

Unfounded Misconduct Complaints: Protecting Public Servants from False Accusations – Philippine Jurisprudence
Protecting Public Servants from False Accusations: The Importance of Evidence in Administrative Complaints

In the pursuit of justice and accountability, it’s crucial to ensure that complaints against public officials are not only filed but also substantiated with credible evidence. This case underscores the principle that while public office is indeed a public trust, those serving in government roles are also entitled to protection from baseless accusations that can disrupt public service and damage reputations. Learn why solid evidence is paramount when lodging complaints against public servants and how the Philippine legal system balances accountability with the rights of the accused.

A.M. No. P-94-1106, March 10, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine facing serious accusations at work, charges that could ruin your career and reputation, only to find out the claims are based on hearsay and lack concrete proof. This is the precarious situation public servants can find themselves in. In the Philippines, where public office is regarded as a public trust, the accountability of government employees is paramount. However, this accountability must be balanced with the need to protect dedicated public servants from malicious or poorly substantiated complaints. The case of Francisco v. Leyva perfectly illustrates this delicate balance.

Adalia B. Francisco filed an administrative case against Deputy Sheriff Rolando G. Leyva, accusing him of attempted extortion, serious misconduct, and dishonesty. Francisco alleged that Leyva refused to issue a Certificate of Sale after a foreclosure auction unless she paid him an exorbitant sheriff’s fee or a bribe. The Supreme Court was tasked to determine if Leyva was guilty of these grave offenses based on Francisco’s claims.

LEGAL CONTEXT: PUBLIC OFFICE AS A PUBLIC TRUST AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY

Philippine law firmly establishes that public office is a public trust. This principle is enshrined in Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.” This constitutional mandate emphasizes the high ethical standards and accountability expected of those in government service.

To ensure these standards are upheld, the law provides mechanisms for filing administrative complaints against erring public officials and employees. These complaints can range from minor infractions to grave offenses like misconduct, dishonesty, and extortion. The Rules of Court, specifically Rule 139-B, outlines the procedure for administrative cases against judges and justices of the lower courts, and by extension, applies to other court personnel like sheriffs.

However, the legal system also recognizes the potential for abuse of these complaint mechanisms. Unsubstantiated or malicious complaints can harass public servants, disrupt government functions, and undermine morale. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the complainant to present substantial evidence to support their allegations. “Substantial evidence” is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise (Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635).

In the context of sheriff’s duties, it’s important to note that sheriffs play a crucial role in the execution of court orders, including auction sales in foreclosure cases. Their fees are regulated and form part of the costs of litigation. Demanding excessive or unauthorized fees, or soliciting bribes, are serious violations of their duty and constitute misconduct. However, allegations of such misconduct must be proven, not merely asserted.

CASE BREAKDOWN: FRANCISCO VS. LEYVA – THE FAILURE OF PROOF

The narrative of Francisco v. Leyva unfolds as a clash of accusations versus denials, ultimately decided on the weight of evidence. Here’s a step-by-step account:
1. Foreclosure and Auction: A. Francisco Realty initiated foreclosure proceedings, and Deputy Sheriff Leyva was assigned to conduct the auction sale. The sale took place on September 28, 1994, with A. Francisco Realty as the sole bidder.
2. Alleged Extortion: Adalia Francisco, representing A. Francisco Realty, claimed that when she requested the Certificate of Sale, Leyva demanded a sheriff’s fee of two percent of the bid amount. Upon her protest, he allegedly asked for P100,000 without a receipt, later reducing his demand to P20,000 as “gratitude money,” all while refusing to issue the certificate.
3. Complaint Filed: Aggrieved by Leyva’s alleged actions, Francisco filed an administrative complaint with the Supreme Court on October 25, 1994.
4. Leyva’s Defense: Leyva vehemently denied the extortion allegations. He countered that he issued the Certificate of Sale the day after the auction, September 29, 1994, and even presented a photocopy of the certificate with a receiving signature from A. Francisco Realty’s representative. He explained that his initial delay was due to his belief that sheriff’s fees were payable to the Clerk of Court, but upon clarification that no fees were due since no money changed hands in the auction, he promptly issued the certificate.
5. Investigation and Hearing: The Supreme Court referred the case to Executive Judge Felix S. Caballes for investigation. During the hearings, Leyva reiterated his denial. Crucially, Francisco, despite being notified, failed to appear at any of the hearings to present her evidence and testimony.
6. OCA Recommendation and Supreme Court Decision: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), after evaluating the evidence (or lack thereof), recommended the dismissal of the complaint. The Supreme Court concurred with the OCA’s recommendation, finding that Francisco failed to substantiate her serious allegations. The Court emphasized the absence of evidence from the complainant and the documentary evidence supporting Leyva’s claim of timely issuance of the Certificate of Sale.
The Supreme Court, quoting Pag-ibig Village Association v. Aquilino Angon, stated:

“We have been exacting in our demands that court sheriffs should always faithfully adhere to, hold inviolate and invigorate the principle solemnly enshrined in the Constitution that a public office is a public trust. Pursuant thereto, we have, without hesitation, dismissed or disciplined sheriffs who failed to meet our expectations. However, such as here, we shall likewise be the first to protect them against unfounded administrative complaints which do not appear to be genuine efforts to rid the court of the scalawags in the service, or which are merely designed to frustrate the due administration of justice.”

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the complaint against Deputy Sheriff Leyva.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING YOUR RIGHTS AND ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY

The Francisco v. Leyva case offers valuable lessons for both those who seek to hold public servants accountable and for public servants themselves. It highlights the critical importance of evidence in administrative complaints and the judiciary’s commitment to fairness and due process for all parties involved.

For individuals or entities filing complaints against public officials, this case underscores the following:
- Burden of Proof: The responsibility to prove the allegations rests squarely on the complainant. Mere accusations are insufficient.
- Gather Evidence: Collect and present concrete evidence such as documents, emails, recordings, witness testimonies, or any other form of proof to support your claims. In Francisco’s case, the lack of any evidence to counter Leyva’s documentation proved fatal to her complaint.
- Participate in Proceedings: It is crucial to actively participate in the investigation and hearings. Failure to appear and present your case weakens your position significantly, as demonstrated by Francisco’s absence during the hearings.
For public servants, this case provides reassurance that the legal system recognizes the need to protect them from unfounded accusations. It reinforces the principle that:
- Presumption of Regularity: Public officials are presumed to perform their duties regularly and in good faith. This presumption can only be overturned by clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing.
- Right to Due Process: Public servants facing administrative complaints are entitled to due process, including the right to be heard, to present evidence, and to confront their accusers.
KEY LESSONS
- Evidence is King: In administrative complaints, especially those alleging serious misconduct, substantial evidence is indispensable for a successful prosecution.
- Complainant’s Responsibility: The complainant bears the burden of proving their allegations. Failure to present evidence will likely result in dismissal of the complaint.
- Protection Against Baseless Suits: The judiciary is committed to protecting public servants from unfounded complaints that lack merit and are potentially malicious.
- Balance of Accountability and Fairness: The legal system strives to strike a balance between ensuring public accountability and protecting the rights and reputations of public officials.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q1: What constitutes sufficient evidence in an administrative complaint against a public official?

A: Sufficient evidence, also known as substantial evidence, is relevant evidence that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This can include documents, witness testimonies, recordings, and other forms of proof that directly support the allegations.

Q2: What happens if a complainant fails to present evidence or appear at hearings in an administrative case?

A: As seen in Francisco v. Leyva, failure to present evidence and participate in hearings significantly weakens the complainant’s case. It often leads to the dismissal of the complaint due to lack of substantiation.

Q3: What is the presumption of regularity in public service, and how does it apply to administrative cases?

A: The presumption of regularity is a legal principle that assumes public officials perform their duties honestly, with integrity, and according to the law. In administrative cases, this means the burden is on the complainant to present evidence to overcome this presumption and prove the public official’s wrongdoing.

Q4: What are common examples of misconduct that can be grounds for administrative complaints against sheriffs?

A: Misconduct by sheriffs can include demanding excessive or unauthorized fees, failing to properly execute court orders, abuse of authority, dishonesty, and extortion, as alleged in Francisco v. Leyva. However, these allegations must be supported by evidence.

Q5: How can I file an administrative complaint against a public official in the Philippines?

A: The process for filing an administrative complaint depends on the specific public official and the nature of the complaint. Generally, complaints against court personnel are filed with the Supreme Court or the Office of the Court Administrator. It is advisable to seek legal counsel to ensure proper procedure and documentation.

Q6: What is the role of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in administrative cases against court personnel?

A: The OCA is the investigative and recommendatory arm of the Supreme Court for administrative matters involving court personnel. It conducts investigations, evaluates evidence, and submits recommendations to the Supreme Court for final decision.

Q7: Why is it important to seek legal advice if I am considering filing or defending against an administrative complaint?

A: Administrative law can be complex, and the outcome of these cases can have significant consequences on one’s career and reputation. Legal counsel can provide guidance on the proper procedures, evidence gathering, legal strategy, and representation throughout the process, ensuring your rights are protected and your case is presented effectively.

ASG Law specializes in litigation and administrative law, assisting clients in navigating complex legal challenges involving public accountability and misconduct. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.
March 10, 1999
Understanding Court Jurisdiction in Forcible Entry Cases in the Philippines: An In-depth Analysis
n

Navigating Jurisdiction in Forcible Entry Disputes: Why the Plaintiff’s Allegations Matter

n

TLDR: In Philippine forcible entry cases, courts prioritize the plaintiff’s complaint to determine jurisdiction, even if the defendant raises tenancy issues. This case clarifies that initial claims dictate where a case is heard, emphasizing the importance of proper legal framing from the outset. Sheriffs enforcing court orders must also adhere to rules regarding seized property, ensuring proper procedure even in urgent situations.

n
[ A.M. No. MTJ-96-1085, October 08, 1998 ]

nn

INTRODUCTION

n

Imagine owning land and suddenly finding someone forcibly occupying it. Your immediate recourse is to seek legal intervention to reclaim your property. But where do you even begin? In the Philippines, disputes over land possession, particularly forcible entry, can become complex, especially when issues of tenancy arise. The case of Salvacion P. Onquit v. Judge Aurora Binamira-Parcia and Sheriff IV Danilo O. Matias, G.R. No. 36516, decided on October 8, 1998, provides crucial insights into how Philippine courts determine jurisdiction in forcible entry cases and underscores the duties of court officers in enforcing orders.

n

This administrative case stemmed from a forcible entry dispute where the complainant, Salvacion Onquit, challenged the jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) and the actions of Judge Aurora Binamira-Parcia and Sheriff Danilo O. Matias. Onquit argued that the land in question was agricultural and thus fell under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), not the MCTC. She also alleged grave abuse of authority and misconduct against the judge and sheriff for their handling of the case, particularly concerning a writ of preliminary injunction and a seizure order.

nn

LEGAL CONTEXT: Jurisdiction in Forcible Entry and the Role of Pleadings

n

The determination of jurisdiction is fundamental in any legal proceeding. In the Philippines, jurisdiction over subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint. Forcible entry cases, a type of ejectment suit, are generally within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs). This jurisdiction is defined under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, also known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended.

n

However, the legal landscape becomes nuanced when tenancy is raised as a defense in a forcible entry case. Presidential Decree No. 946 vests the DAR with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters. This often leads to jurisdictional conflicts, particularly when agricultural land is involved. The Supreme Court has consistently addressed this issue, clarifying the principle that jurisdiction is primarily determined by the allegations of the complaint.

n

Crucially, the Supreme Court has emphasized that:

n

“Basic is the rule that the material averments in the complaint, which in this case is for ejectment, determine the jurisdiction of the court. And, jurisprudence dictates that the court does not lose its jurisdiction over an ejectment case by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties.” (De la Cruz vs. Bautista, 186 SCRA 517, 525)

n

This principle means that even if a defendant claims tenancy and argues DAR jurisdiction, the court initially retains jurisdiction if the complaint itself is clearly for forcible entry and doesn’t indicate an agrarian dispute. The court then proceeds to hear evidence to determine if tenancy indeed exists. Only if tenancy is proven will the court be divested of jurisdiction and the case potentially transferred to the DAR.

n

Another critical aspect highlighted in this case is the procedural aspect of injunctions and seizure orders, governed by the Rules of Court. Rule 58 outlines the procedure for preliminary injunctions, including the requirement for a bond to protect the defendant from damages if the injunction is later found to be wrongful. Rule 70, specifically dealing with ejectment suits, supplements these rules. Furthermore, the concept of custodia legis (custody of the law) is relevant when property is seized by court order. Seized property is considered to be in the court’s possession and must be handled according to legal procedures.

nn

CASE BREAKDOWN: Onquit v. Judge Parcia and Sheriff Matias

n

The saga began when a forcible entry case was filed against Salvacion Onquit and her brothers in the MCTC presided over by Judge Parcia. The plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent Onquit and her brothers from occupying the land. Onquit immediately challenged the MCTC’s jurisdiction, arguing that the land was agricultural and under DAR’s purview.

n

Despite Onquit’s jurisdictional challenge, Judge Parcia denied her motions, asserting that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. The court proceeded to approve the plaintiff’s injunction bond and issued a writ of preliminary injunction against Onquit and her co-defendants. A subsequent seizure order directed Sheriff Matias to seize the harvested palay (unmilled rice) from the disputed land.

n

Feeling aggrieved, Onquit filed an administrative complaint against Judge Parcia and Sheriff Matias, alleging:

n
- Lack of jurisdiction of the MCTC over an agrarian land dispute.
- Violation of due process due to not being furnished a copy of the injunction bond before its approval and lack of notice regarding the seizure order.
- Bias on the part of Judge Parcia, including alleged statements suggesting Onquit would lose and rumors of receiving payment from the plaintiff.
- Misconduct by Sheriff Matias for seizing palay without issuing a receipt and delivering it directly to the plaintiff.
n

Judge Parcia defended her actions, stating that the complaint’s allegations determined jurisdiction and that the records showed the motion to admit bond was furnished to the complainant’s counsel. She justified the seizure order due to the urgency and the complainant’s defiance of the injunction. She vehemently denied any bias or improper conversations, even inhibiting herself from further hearing the civil case to ensure impartiality.

n

Sheriff Matias explained that he implemented the seizure order as directed, with police assistance due to potential resistance. He admitted to not issuing a receipt immediately upon seizure but explained it was due to the palay needing to be threshed and cleaned to determine the exact quantity. He justified delivering the palay to the plaintiff’s wife due to its wet condition and risk of spoilage, aiming to preserve the harvested crop. He acknowledged that the plaintiff provided transportation, which was the basis of the collusion accusation.

n

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence and the Office of the Court Administrator’s findings, sided with Judge Parcia and Sheriff Matias, dismissing the administrative charges against the judge for lack of merit and admonishing the sheriff regarding the proper handling of seized property. The Court reiterated the principle of jurisdictional determination based on the complaint’s allegations. It found no grave abuse of authority by Judge Parcia in taking cognizance of the forcible entry case. Regarding the injunction bond, the Court clarified that the plaintiff, not the judge, is responsible for serving a copy of the bond, and any failure was a mere formal defect.

n

The Court stated:

n

“Well-settled is the principle that the courts shall not be divested of jurisdiction over a case merely by what is raised in the answer. What determines the nature of an action and a court’s jurisdiction over it are the allegations set up by the plaintiff.”

n

On the seizure order, the Court found it justified due to the complainant’s defiance of the injunction. While Sheriff Matias was admonished for improperly delivering the seized palay directly to the plaintiff instead of depositing it with the court (as property in custodia legis), the Court acknowledged mitigating circumstances – the urgency to prevent spoilage and the lack of bad faith. The Court stated regarding the sheriff’s duty:

n

“When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it in accordance with its mandates.”

nn

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Key Takeaways for Land Disputes and Court Procedures

n

This case offers several crucial lessons for individuals and businesses involved in land disputes, particularly forcible entry cases in the Philippines:

n
- Drafting the Complaint is Paramount: Plaintiffs initiating forcible entry cases must ensure their complaints clearly and unequivocally allege acts of dispossession without explicitly or implicitly raising tenancy issues. The allegations in the complaint are the primary determinant of jurisdiction.
- Tenancy as a Defense Doesn’t Automatically Oust Jurisdiction: Defendants cannot automatically transfer a forcible entry case to the DAR simply by raising tenancy as a defense. The court will initially proceed with the case and determine jurisdiction based on evidence presented.
- Injunction Bonds Protect Defendants: While plaintiffs must furnish an injunction bond, failure to immediately serve a copy on the defendant is a formal defect, not a fatal error. Defendants have the right to request a copy and object to the bond’s sufficiency.
- Sheriffs Must Adhere to Procedure: Sheriffs have a ministerial duty to enforce court orders promptly. However, when executing seizure orders, they must strictly comply with rules regarding custodia legis, ensuring seized property is deposited with the court unless explicitly directed otherwise. Even in urgent situations, deviating from procedure requires careful consideration and documentation to avoid allegations of misconduct.
nn

Key Lessons

n
- For Landowners: When facing forcible entry, act swiftly and consult legal counsel to ensure the complaint is correctly filed in the proper court, clearly stating the cause of action as forcible entry and focusing on possession, not tenancy.
- For Defendants in Forcible Entry Cases: While you can raise tenancy as a defense, understand that it won’t automatically transfer the case to DAR. Be prepared to present strong evidence of a tenancy relationship to challenge the court’s jurisdiction effectively.
- For Sheriffs: Execute court orders diligently but always adhere to procedural rules, especially regarding seized property. When in doubt, seek clarification from the court and meticulously document all actions taken, especially when deviating from standard procedures due to exigent circumstances.
nn

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

n

1. What is forcible entry in Philippine law?

n

Forcible entry is a summary action to recover material possession of property when a person is deprived thereof through force, intimidation, threats, strategy, or stealth. It is a legal remedy to regain possession quickly.

nn

2. How is jurisdiction determined in a forcible entry case if tenancy is claimed?

n

Philippine courts initially determine jurisdiction in forcible entry cases based on the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint. If the complaint is clearly for forcible entry, the court assumes jurisdiction, even if the defendant raises tenancy as a defense. The court will then hear evidence to determine if tenancy exists. If tenancy is proven, the case may be referred to the DAR.

nn

3. What is an injunction bond, and why is it required?

n

An injunction bond is a security posted by the plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction. It serves to protect the defendant from potential damages if the injunction is later found to have been wrongfully issued. If the injunction causes damage to the defendant and is ultimately dissolved, the defendant can recover against the bond.

nn

4. What does ‘custodia legis’ mean in the context of seized property?

n

Custodia legis is Latin for
October 8, 1998
Execution Sales: Ensuring Excess Proceeds are Returned to the Debtor
The Importance of Returning Excess Proceeds to the Judgment Debtor in Execution Sales

A.M. No. P-93-995, July 12, 1996

Imagine you are in debt, and the court orders the sale of your property to settle it. The sale goes well, fetching more than the debt owed. Where does the extra money go? This case clarifies that the excess funds must be returned to you, the debtor, not used to settle other claims without proper legal procedure. This principle protects debtors from unfair practices during execution sales.

Understanding Execution Sales and Judgment Debts

An execution sale is a court-ordered sale of a debtor’s property to satisfy a judgment. This process is governed by specific rules outlined in the Rules of Court. A judgment debt is the amount a court has ordered a person or entity to pay to another party.

The Rules of Court, specifically Rule 39, Section 15, details how money judgments should be executed. This section emphasizes the officer’s duty to levy on the debtor’s property, sell it, and pay the judgment creditor. Crucially, any excess from the sale must be returned to the judgment debtor, unless the court directs otherwise.

“Sec. 15. Execution of money judgments. – The officer must enforce an execution of a money judgment by levying on all the property, real and personal of every name and nature whatsoever, and which may be disposed of for value, of the judgment debtor not exempt from execution, or on a sufficient amount of such property, if there be sufficient and selling the same, and paying to the judgment creditor, or his attorney, so much of the proceeds as will satisfy the judgment. Any excess in the proceeds over the judgment and accruing costs must be delivered to the judgment debtor, unless otherwise directed by the judgment or order of the court.”

For example, suppose a court orders you to pay P50,000. To satisfy the debt, the sheriff levies your car and sells it at auction for P70,000. After paying the creditor P50,000, the remaining P20,000 must be returned to you.

The Case of Jalbuena vs. Gellada: A Detailed Look

Roberto Jalbuena filed a complaint against Edgardo Gellada, a Clerk of Court, and Rex Fuentebella, a Sheriff, alleging dishonesty and misconduct in handling the execution of money judgments against him and his wife.

Here’s a breakdown of the events:
- The Jalbuenas owed money to Ilawod Farmer’s Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc.
- The court issued writs of execution to seize and sell their property to satisfy the debts.
- A motorcycle and sidecar were levied and sold at auction.
- The auction generated more money than the debts owed.
- Instead of returning the excess to the Jalbuenas, the Clerk of Court used a portion of the funds to pay a third-party claimant (Norkis Distributors, Inc.) who had a claim on the motorcycle.
Jalbuena argued that the excess amount of P27,850.00 should have been given to him, and the Clerk of Court violated the Rules of Court by remitting P34,975.00 to Norkis.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the respondents failed to follow the procedure outlined in the Rules of Court. The Court stated:

“In this case, the notice of sale on execution issued in Civil Case No. 1184 decrees that the subject motorcycle should be sold to satisfy the judgment debt in favor of judgment creditor Ilawod in the amount of P8,200.00. The motorcycle was sold at P34,975.00. This amount should have been applied to satisfy the judgment of P8,200.00 against complainant Jalbuena. Its excess should have been returned to complainant and not to third party claimant Norkis.”

“On the other hand, the notice of sale in Civil Case No. 1187, states that the tricycle sidecar should be sold for the judgment debt of P8,950.00. The sidecar was sold for P10,000.00. Again, the said sum should have been applied first to satisfy the judgment of P8,950.00 against Magdalena Jalbuena and its excess paid to said judgment debtor. It is plain that the respondent utterly failed to follow the rules on satisfaction of judgment.”

While the Court acknowledged procedural flaws, it also noted that the respondents did not personally benefit from the mishandling of funds. Consequently, the Clerk of Court and Deputy Sheriff were fined P1,000.00 each with a stern warning.

Practical Implications: What This Means for You

This case serves as a reminder to court officers to strictly adhere to the Rules of Court when executing judgments. It also informs debtors of their rights during execution sales.

If you are a debtor whose property is being sold to satisfy a judgment, remember that you are entitled to any excess proceeds from the sale after the debt and associated costs are paid.

Key Lessons
- Excess proceeds from an execution sale must be returned to the judgment debtor.
- Court officers must strictly follow the Rules of Court during execution sales.
- Debtors have the right to claim any excess proceeds from the sale of their property.
Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What happens if my property is sold for more than what I owe?

A: The excess amount must be returned to you, the judgment debtor, after the judgment creditor is paid and all accruing costs are covered.

Q: What should I do if the sheriff does not return the excess amount to me?

A: You should file a complaint with the court and seek legal assistance. You may also file an administrative case against the erring sheriff.

Q: Can the excess amount be used to pay other debts I owe?

A: Not without a separate court order. The excess belongs to you unless the court directs otherwise.

Q: What is a writ of execution?

A: A writ of execution is a court order instructing the sheriff to enforce a judgment.

Q: What is a levy on execution?

A: A levy on execution is the act of seizing a debtor’s property to satisfy a judgment.

ASG Law specializes in civil litigation and debt recovery. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.
July 12, 1996