Sarmiento v. Victoria
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jose C. Sarmiento was a defendant in a civil case for Sum of Money. The RTC granted a writ of preliminary attachment, and respondent Sheriff Romulo C. Victoria levied on Sarmiento's personal and real properties. Procedural History: Complainant averred that the sheriff violated procedural rules by depositing attached properties in the warehouse of the plaintiff (Singson) and influencing Sarmiento's daughter to sign a document consenting to the deposit. Sarmiento also claimed an "over-levy" as the value of attached properties exceeded the attachment bond. The Petition: The complainant charged the respondent sheriff with Grave Abuse of Authority and Gross Misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff committed Grave Abuse of Authority and Gross Misconduct in implementing the writ of preliminary attachment, including the allegation of "over-levy" of properties. Whether the respondent sheriff violated Section 7(b) of Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by depositing the attached properties in the warehouse of the plaintiff.
Ruling
The Court found the respondent sheriff liable for depositing the attached properties in the warehouse of the plaintiff, imposing a fine of ₱3,000.00. The charges of exceeding authority in attaching properties and "over-levy" were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of Grave Abuse of Authority and Gross Misconduct, including exceeding authority in attaching properties and "over-levy": The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) exculpated the respondent sheriff from the charge of exceeding his authority in attaching the properties. The OCA opined that it is not the duty of the sheriff to determine if property is exempt from attachment; this burden falls upon the judgment obligor. Furthermore, regarding the "over-levy" claim, the OCA clarified that a sheriff is not duty-bound to make a valuation of attached properties at the time of enforcement, as their true value is ascertained only at the execution sale. The sheriff's role is ministerial, and any objections should be addressed to the trial court. On the violation of Section 7(b) of Rule 57: The OCA found the respondent sheriff liable for depositing the attached properties in the plaintiff's warehouse. The Court emphasized that Section 7(b) of Rule 57 mandates the sheriff to take possession and safely keep the attached property in his custody. This provision does not grant the sheriff discretion to surrender the property to the creditor or deposit it in the creditor's warehouse. The consent of the complainant's daughter was deemed insufficient to establish substantial presence and possession by the sheriff. The sheriff's claim of lack of time to secure a private bonded warehouse was not a valid justification, as he could have used another warehouse if he could use the plaintiff's. The Court reiterated that the conduct of court employees must be beyond suspicion, and the sheriff failed to satisfactorily explain his failure to take the movable property under his control.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff is strictly bound to take and safely keep in his custody all attached personal property capable of manual delivery, and cannot delegate this duty or deposit the property in the custody of a party to the case, even if done for expediency.