Sheriff Dismissed for Unauthorized Auction and Falsified Sale Certificate

A sheriff's duty to execute court judgments is ministerial, but that duty has strict limits. When a sheriff oversteps those limits, fabricates documents, and conducts an auction without authority, the Supreme Court will not hesitate to impose the ultimate administrative penalty. In Go v. Costelo, Jr. (A.M. No. P-08-2450, June 10, 2009), the Court dismissed a sheriff with 17 years of service for grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and falsification of an official document.

The Facts

Aurora Go owned a parcel of land in Calubian, Leyte, covered by Tax Declaration No. ARP 09004-00109. She had executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of her sister, Anita Conde. Meanwhile, in an ejectment case before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Cebu City, a deficiency judgment of P143,294.39 was rendered against Go.

The MTCC issued an Order authorizing "the Deputy Sheriff of this Court or the Deputy Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Calubian, Leyte" to levy on Go's property. The authority given was only to levy — not to conduct an auction sale.

On November 8, 2001, while Go was in Taiwan, her sister learned that respondent Sheriff Margarito Costelo, Jr. was conducting an auction sale of the property that very day. Despite Conde showing proof of ownership and filing a third-party claim, the sheriff proceeded with the sale. The Certificate of Sale was issued in favor of Doris Sunbanon, the prevailing party in the ejectment case.

The Investigation

Judge Crisostomo Garrido of the RTC of Carigara, Leyte conducted the investigation. His findings were damning:

• The sheriff had no authority to conduct the auction. The MTCC's Order only authorized him to levy on the property. Under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the auction should have been conducted by the sheriff of the court that issued the writ.
• The Certificate of Sale and Minutes of Auction were fictitious and fabricated. Notary Public Roberto dela Peña testified that his signature on the Certificate of Sale was forged, and the notarial register showed a different document recorded under the cited entry.
• The auction could not have physically taken place. Certifications from PAGASA and the Philippine Coast Guard showed that a typhoon with Storm Signal No. 2 battered the Visayas from November 6 to 8, 2001, and no vessels were cleared to leave Cebu for Leyte. Sunbanon's presence at the auction was never proven.
• The sheriff's belated evidence — including an affidavit of recantation from the notary and Daily Time Records showing perfect attendance during the storm — was rejected as an afterthought.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the investigating judge and the Office of the Court Administrator. The Court found the sheriff guilty of:

1. Grave misconduct — conducting a public auction without authority, in violation of Section 15, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which prescribes the proper notice and venue requirements for execution sales.
2. Grave abuse of authority — disposing of property by auction instead of merely levying on it, as the MTCC Order directed.
3. Falsification of official document — fabricating the Certificate of Sale and Minutes of Auction, including forging the notary's signature and inventing notarial register entries.

The Court cited Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which requires court personnel to perform duties properly, not to falsify records, and to enforce rules within the limits of their authority. The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provide that both grave misconduct and falsification of official documents are punishable by dismissal.

Practical Takeaways

• A sheriff's authority is defined by the writ and court orders. An order to levy does not include the power to auction. Sheriffs must strictly follow the procedure in Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including conducting the sale at the office of the clerk of court of the issuing court.
• Falsifying court documents is a dismissal offense. Creating a fictitious Certificate of Sale or Minutes of Auction — or forging a notary's signature — is grave misconduct warranting the supreme penalty, regardless of years of service.
• Recantations are highly suspect. Courts view affidavits of recantation as unreliable, especially when executed only after an adverse recommendation and when the witness's earlier testimony was clear and straightforward.
• Impossible circumstances matter. When weather certifications and transportation records show an event could not have occurred, courts will draw inferences against the sheriff's version of events.
• Length of service does not shield misconduct. A 17-year veteran sheriff was dismissed with forfeiture of benefits and prejudice to re-employment — a warning that experience is no defense to deliberate wrongdoing.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.