Acting on writ of execution issued by the Manila City Court, respondents deputy sheriff of Rizal levied upon the properties of judgment debtor, Eugenio Guevarra, and set the public auction thereof for May 31, 1972. He reset the sale for July 3, 1972, after complainants filed a replevin suit in the Cavite City Court to recover the chattels. When the replevin suit was denied, complainants moved to reconsider. They likewise filed with the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Makati, Rizal, a motion to suspend the sale until the Cavite Court shall have resolved the motion for reconsideration. But because respondent received no restraining order, he proceeded with the sale on July 3, 1972. For thus selling the personal properties without awaiting action on the motion for reconsideration, respondent was charged with grave abuse of authority and negligence in the performance of his duties. Meanwhile, on July 12, 1972, the Cavite Court denied reconsideration of the order of dismissal.

The Supreme Court exonerated respondent and dismissed the complaint, since the facts recited do not make out a case against Respondent.

1. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT; SHERIFFS; NO ABUSE OF AUTHORITY OR NEGLECT OF DUTY WHERE NO IMPEDIMENT TO SCHEDULED AUCTION SALE EXISTS. — Where, by virtue of a court’s execution, a sheriff proceeded with the scheduled auction sale, he did not abuse his authority and neglected none of his duties, notwithstanding the pendency in another court of a motion to reconsider the dismissal of a replevin suit to recover the properties subject of the auction sale, it appearing that when the sheriff sold the properties, there was no impediment to the scheduled sale, no restraining order having been secured to enjoin or suspend the same. And it appearing furthermore, that the replevin suit was subsequently dismissed, so that no prejudice was suffered by the complainants resulting from the sale, the sheriff should be exonerated of administrative charges. Still, as a precautionary measure, it would have been the better part of prudence had the sheriff before proceeding with the sale, (1) first checked what action, if any, had been taken on complainant’s motion for reconsideration, and (2) also inquired whether a motion to suspend the sale had been filed in court and the action taken thereon, if any.

R E S O L U T I O N

By virtue of a writ of execution issued by the City Court of Manila, Branch VIII, in its civil case 179318, the above-named respondent, Eulalio C. Juanson, Deputy Sheriff of Rizal, levied upon certain chattels which he found in the residence of the judgment-debtor, Eugenio Guevarra, and subsequently set the public auction thereof for May 31, 1972. However, the complainants, the spouses Alfonso Guevarra and Clarissa Victoriano, and the spouses Ambrosio Trias and Eloisa Pinzon on May 26, 1972 filed a replevin suit with the City Court of Cavite, docketed therein as civil case 1514, for recovery of the said personal properties. Whereupon the respondent Juanson reset the auction sale for July 3, 1972.

On June 22, 1972 the City Court of Cavite dismissed the replevin suit; on June 29 the complainants (therein plaintiffs) moved to reconsider, notifying the defendants’ counsel that the motion for reconsideration would be submitted on July 11, 1972 for the court’s action; they likewise filed with the office of the Provincial Sheriff at Makati, Rizal (not with a court) a motion to suspend the sale until the Cavite court shall have resolved their motion for reconsideration. (Annex L, rollo, p. 55).

Because the respondent sheriff received no restraining order, he proceeded with the auction sale on July 3, 1972. On July 12, 1972 the court denied reconsideration of the order dismissing the replevin suit. For thus selling the personal properties without awaiting resolution of the motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal, the respondent sheriff is now charged in the present administrative complaint with grave abuse of authority and negligence in the performance of his duties.

The facts recited above do not make out a case against the respondent, and, in view of the subsequent denial of their motion for reconsideration, the complainants suffered no prejudice resulting from the auction sale on July 3, 1972. The respondent did not abuse his authority and neglected none of his duties. At the time he sold the properties by virtue of the Manila court’s writ of execution, notwithstanding the pendency of the motion for reconsideration in the Cavite court, there was no legal impediment to the scheduled sale, the complainants having failed to obtain an order enjoining or suspending the sale. Still, as a precautionary measure, it would have been the better part of prudence had the respondent, before proceeding with the auction sale, (1) first checked with the Cavite court what action, if any, had been taken on the complainants’ motion for reconsideration and (2) also inquired from the Manila court whether a motion to suspend the sale had been filed or not and the action taken thereon, if any.

ACCORDINGLY, the respondent sheriff is exonerated of the charges and the complaint is hereby dismissed.

Makasiar, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma and Martin, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., is on leave.