Torres v. Cabesuela
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Librada D. Torres alleged that respondent Sheriff Nelson C. Cabesuela issued a "Sheriff's Deputization" to members of the PNP in San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, enabling them to seize a Mitsubishi Pajero vehicle pursuant to a writ of replevin issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 9, Manila. The vehicle was mortgaged to Philam Savings Bank, Inc., and the bank filed a replevin case due to the school's failure to pay its obligation. The complainant contended that the sheriff's act of deputizing the police officers lacked legal basis and constituted usurpation of the judge's powers. Procedural History: The respondent sheriff filed a motion to dismiss, claiming he deputized the police after attempting to implement the writ himself and finding the vehicle undergoing repairs. He stated he opted for "constructive seizure" by serving copies of the complaint, summons, and bond to the complainant and another individual. The motion to dismiss was denied. The Deputy Ombudsman for the Military recommended the filing of an information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 against the police officers and the respondent sheriff, but dismissed other charges. The case was referred to the Supreme Court for administrative proceedings against the sheriff. The Petition: The Court Administrator found the complaint meritorious and recommended a fine of P5,000.00 against the respondent sheriff for abuse of authority.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff committed abuse of authority in issuing the "Sheriff's Deputization" to police officers outside his territorial jurisdiction. Whether the respondent sheriff committed misconduct by delegating the personal implementation of the writ of seizure.
Ruling
The respondent sheriff, Nelson C. Cabesuela, was found guilty of abuse of authority and ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00 with a stern warning against repetition of similar acts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abuse of authority in issuing the "Sheriff's Deputization" outside territorial jurisdiction: The Court held that the respondent sheriff committed abuse of authority. Administrative Circular No. 12 (5) clearly provides that "No sheriff or deputy sheriff shall execute a court writ outside his territorial jurisdiction without first notifying in writing and seeking the assistance of, the sheriff of the place where the execution shall take place." The respondent's territorial jurisdiction was confined to Manila, yet he implemented the writ in Nueva Ecija. Instead of notifying and seeking the assistance of the sheriff of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, he unlawfully deputized the Chief of Police of that place. This act directly contravened the clear mandate of the circular, which aims to streamline the service and execution of court writs and processes and to facilitate the administration of justice. Sheriffs, as ministerial officers, are expected to faithfully perform their duties with due care and utmost diligence, and errors in serving court writs undermine the integrity of their office. On the issue of delegating the personal implementation of the writ of seizure: The Court affirmed that the respondent sheriff committed serious misconduct and gross negligence by delegating the personal implementation of the writ of seizure. Citing Tordesillas vs. Basco, the Court reiterated that under Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, it is the personal duty and responsibility of the sheriff to personally implement the writ. The respondent's absence during the seizure of the vehicle, which was carried out by police officers he unlawfully deputized, falls squarely within this prohibition. This delegation constitutes a failure to discharge his primary role and responsibility as a sheriff, thereby constituting serious misconduct and gross negligence.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff who implements a writ outside his territorial jurisdiction without first notifying and seeking the assistance of the sheriff of the place where the execution shall take place commits abuse of authority. Furthermore, a sheriff cannot delegate the personal implementation of a writ of seizure, as this constitutes serious misconduct and gross negligence.