A.M. No. R-565-P. November 27, 1986.
Consorcia Balais, complainant, vs. Deputy Provincial Sheriff Francisco Abuda, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Consorcia Balais, a tenant on two separate lots, charged Deputy Sheriff Francisco Abuda with abuse of authority. The respondent sheriff enforced a writ of execution in a quieting of title case (Kagawan vs. Senabre) involving Lot No. 2218. On April 4, 1985, Abuda, accompanied by the plaintiff’s lawyer’s representatives, went to Balais’s house and took ten sacks of palay. Balais protested, informing them that only two sacks were harvested from the litigated Lot 2218, with the remaining eight sacks coming from her tenancy on a different lot, Lot No. 2244, owned by Unimasters, Inc. Despite this, the palay was taken and turned over to the plaintiff’s lawyer, with a receipt issued for only nine cavans.
Executive Judge Auxencio Dacuycuy conducted a motu proprio investigation. His report found reasonable grounds to believe that eight sacks were indeed harvested from the non-litigated Lot 2244. The Judge recommended that Abuda return six cavans (the tenant’s share) to Balais and two cavans (the landowner’s share) to Unimasters, Inc. The respondent sheriff subsequently paid Balais P780.00, the monetary equivalent of six cavans of palay.

ISSUE

Whether Deputy Sheriff Francisco Abuda committed an administrative offense in the enforcement of the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, respondent Abuda is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that his actions demonstrated a lack of prudence and caution required of a public officer in enforcing court processes. Although the pecuniary claim had been satisfied, the Court emphasized that the respondent failed to justify his act of seizing all ten sacks after being expressly informed that the bulk of the palay was harvested from a parcel of land not subject to the writ of execution. He allowed himself to be improperly influenced by the plaintiff’s lawyer, who was determined to seize the produce irrespective of its source.
The Court reiterated the duty of sheriffs, as public trustees, to perform their duties with reasonable skill, diligence, and care to avoid jeopardizing individual rights. The prudent course of action would have been to deposit the disputed palay in a warehouse pending a judicial resolution of its proper ownership, rather than summarily delivering it to a private party. By failing to exercise this discretion, Abuda fell short of the standard required of a careful public officer managing his own affairs. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to one month’s salary on respondent Abuda, with a stern warning. The Court also noted, while commending Judge Dacuycuy’s initiative, that future administrative complaints should be forwarded directly to the Supreme Court to ensure orderly procedure.