This document summarizes a court case between Ta-Octa and sheriffs Eguia and Torres. Ta-Octa alleged the sheriffs served a petition for foreclosure of a chattel mortgage on the same day it was filed, without conducting a raffle to assign the case or getting court approval. The sheriffs admitted a raffle was not done due to fears the complainant would abscond. The court found the sheriffs violated procedures requiring raffling of extrajudicial foreclosure cases to avoid unequal distribution of work and fraternization between sheriffs and applicants. While the applicant claimed urgency, the sheriffs were still required to follow mandated raffling procedures.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
This document summarizes a court case between Ta-Octa and sheriffs Eguia and Torres. Ta-Octa alleged the sheriffs served a petition for foreclosure of a chattel mortgage on the same day it was filed, without conducting a raffle to assign the case or getting court approval. The sheriffs admitted a raffle was not done due to fears the complainant would abscond. The court found the sheriffs violated procedures requiring raffling of extrajudicial foreclosure cases to avoid unequal distribution of work and fraternization between sheriffs and applicants. While the applicant claimed urgency, the sheriffs were still required to follow mandated raffling procedures.
This document summarizes a court case between Ta-Octa and sheriffs Eguia and Torres. Ta-Octa alleged the sheriffs served a petition for foreclosure of a chattel mortgage on the same day it was filed, without conducting a raffle to assign the case or getting court approval. The sheriffs admitted a raffle was not done due to fears the complainant would abscond. The court found the sheriffs violated procedures requiring raffling of extrajudicial foreclosure cases to avoid unequal distribution of work and fraternization between sheriffs and applicants. While the applicant claimed urgency, the sheriffs were still required to follow mandated raffling procedures.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
This document summarizes a court case between Ta-Octa and sheriffs Eguia and Torres. Ta-Octa alleged the sheriffs served a petition for foreclosure of a chattel mortgage on the same day it was filed, without conducting a raffle to assign the case or getting court approval. The sheriffs admitted a raffle was not done due to fears the complainant would abscond. The court found the sheriffs violated procedures requiring raffling of extrajudicial foreclosure cases to avoid unequal distribution of work and fraternization between sheriffs and applicants. While the applicant claimed urgency, the sheriffs were still required to follow mandated raffling procedures.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
Ta-Octa vs. Eguia and Torres A.M. No. P-02-1568.
April 25, 2002 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 latters 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. Held: 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. 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.
