AM 96 1184; (March, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-96-1184. March 24, 1997
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and SANTIAGO N. SALVADOR, complainants, vs. RODOLFO G. TULIAO, Sheriff IV of the RTC of Cauayan, Isabela, Branch 20, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Santiago Salvador purchased a passenger jeep from Lito Ignacio. After Ignacio filed a collection suit, the Regional Trial Court issued a writ of attachment, which respondent Sheriff Rodolfo Tuliao enforced. Salvador later filed a counterbond, and the court issued an order dated July 13, 1994, approving the counterbond and directing the sheriff to release the attached vehicle to Salvador. Respondent sheriff refused to comply with this order. Instead, he had earlier released the jeep to Ignacio upon the latter’s execution of a receipt and an undertaking to produce the vehicle when required by the court. Respondent justified this action by claiming the court lacked a storage facility to safeguard the vehicle.
ISSUE
Whether respondent sheriff is administratively liable for failing to release the attached property to the complainant in accordance with the court order.
RULING
Yes, respondent sheriff is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found his manner of executing the attachment irregular and his subsequent defiance of the release order unjustified. Under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, personal property capable of manual delivery must be attached by taking and safely keeping it in the sheriff’s custody. By leaving the jeep with the attaching creditor, Ignacio, respondent failed to place the property under official custody as required by law. His claim about the lack of a storage facility is unacceptable; it did not authorize him to relinquish control to a private party. Furthermore, when the court subsequently ordered the release of the vehicle to Salvador upon approval of his counterbond, respondent’s duty was to execute that order strictly and without delay. His refusal to comply, based on the creditor’s failure to return the jeep, constituted a dereliction of duty. Sheriffs must execute court orders with utmost diligence and have no discretion to determine who is entitled to possession once the court has ruled. His actions exhibited gross neglect and undermined the administration of justice. Accordingly, respondent sheriff is SUSPENDED for six (6) months without pay.