A.M. No. P-00-1371. January 23, 2002. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, complainant, vs. RUBEN S. NEQUINTO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 145, Makati City, respondent.
FACTS

The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Ruben S. Nequinto for grave misconduct and abuse of authority in implementing a writ of execution pending appeal. The writ, issued by the RTC of Makati, Branch 147 in a collection case against DBP, commanded the sheriff to levy a specified sum for unpaid rentals and attorney’s fees. Respondent, appointed as a special sheriff for the task, proceeded to DBP’s head office.
During implementation, Sheriff Nequinto demanded payment of P46,310,684.94, a sum vastly exceeding the amount stated in the writ. He threatened to seal the bank’s main vault and levy on computers and equipment if not paid in cash, actions which would have paralyzed bank operations. Despite DBP officials’ objections and presentation of their own computation, respondent insisted on his course of action. DBP was compelled to issue a manager’s check for the inflated amount under protest to avoid disruption.

ISSUE

Whether Sheriff Ruben S. Nequinto is administratively liable for his conduct in implementing the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, Sheriff Nequinto is guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting dismissal. The Court emphasized that sheriffs, as frontline court officers, must act with circumspection to preserve the judiciary’s integrity. Respondent committed several grave violations. First, he demanded an amount not specified in the writ, arrogating upon himself a judicial function of computation, which is a blatant violation of Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Second, his threat to seal the bank vault and levy essential equipment constituted gross abuse of authority, as such coercive tactics were unnecessary and intended to force immediate cash payment, contrary to proper procedure. His actions displayed a lack of fairness, impartiality, and respect for the party against whom execution was issued.
The Court found that his conduct was not mere error in judgment but a conscious disregard of well-defined rules, tarnishing the image of the judiciary. His claim of merely following the instructions of the winning party’s counsel is unacceptable, as a sheriff is an officer of the court, not a partisan agent. For these acts constituting grave misconduct, which is a severe offense punishable by dismissal even for a first offense, the Court ordered his dismissal from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch.