019 Lorca Vs Dineros Law 127.docx

Lorca vs. Dineros

019

No. L-10919. February 28, 1958. Bengzon, J. Deriq M. David Summary: This was an action against Dineros who was acting as an agent for a certain Sheriff. As such the case was dismissed because the case should have been filed against the Sheriff and not the agent. Facts 

  

Pursuant to a writ of execution, Dineros as Deputy Sheriff acting in the name of the Sheriff sold at a public auction the property attached to Jose Bermejo and Rosario Suero, disregarding the third party claim of Loreto Lorca. Lorca then filed this suit for damages as a result of the said auction sale. Defendants defense was that he merely acted for and on behalf of the Provincial Sheriff Cipriano Cabaluna. Lorca however argues on the basis of Sec. 334 of the Revised Administrative Code that Dineros should be held liable.

ISSUES AND HOLDING 

Should Dineros be held liable? No. He merely acted as an agent of the Provincial Sheriff.

Ratio The chourth ere ruled that the provision invoked by Lorca can only be made applicable “if the deputy acts in his own name or is guilty of active malfeasanceor possibly where he exceeds the limits of his agency.” Since the herein defendant acted in the name of the Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo, and no allegations of misfeasance were made, it is not he who can be held liable, but rather the Sheriff who is liable to third persons for the acts of his deputy. Dispositive Case was dismissed. Wrong person impleaded.