G.R. No. A.M. No. 01-1463; March 20, 2001
EVELYN ACUÑA, complainant, vs. RODOLFO A. ALCANTARA, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 50, Villasis, Pangasinan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Evelyn Acuña charged respondent Sheriff Rodolfo A. Alcantara with negligence and partiality in implementing a writ of preliminary attachment in Civil Case No. V-0413. The writ was issued against Acuña’s two flatboats. Complainant alleged that the sheriff failed to take proper precautions to protect the attached property. Respondent initially entrusted the boats to a son of the plaintiff, Gloria Ocampo, under whose watch one flatboat submerged. Later, respondent secured a court order and transferred the boats to the custody of the Philippine Coast Guard in Sual, Pangasinan. While in the Coast Guard’s custody, the boats were subsequently totally damaged by several typhoons.
In his comment, respondent explained that the flatboats were unseaworthy when attached. He initially sought the Coast Guard’s assistance for safekeeping, but they refused without a court order. He was thus constrained to dock the boats at the port, entrusting them to the plaintiff’s son while retaining the keys. After being informed one boat had sunk, he then requested and obtained a court order in June 1998 to place the boats with the Coast Guard. He implemented this order at his own expense. In September 1998, the Coast Guard requested the boats be moved to a safer place, but before he could act, typhoons destroyed them.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Rodolfo A. Alcantara is administratively liable for negligence in the performance of his duties in implementing the writ of attachment.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of simple negligence. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) correctly found the complaint partly meritorious. Applying established jurisprudence, notably Tantingco vs. Aguilar and National Bureau of Investigation vs. Tuliao, a sheriff who levies property under a writ of attachment has a duty to take actual possession and exercise ordinary and reasonable care for its preservation. While the officer may place the property in the custody of another, he cannot relieve himself of liability to the interested parties.
The Court agreed with the OCA’s analysis that respondent was negligent when he initially turned over possession of the boats to the son of the adverse party, the plaintiff. This act demonstrated manifest partiality and a failure to assert exclusive and adverse dominion over the property. His excuse that the Coast Guard initially refused custody without a court order did not exonerate him; the proper course was to immediately seek the necessary court order or, alternatively, appoint a truly disinterested custodian at the plaintiff’s expense. His delay in securing the court order until after one boat had already sunk constituted negligence.
However, the Court also considered mitigating circumstances. Respondent eventually transferred the boats to the Coast Guard’s custody through a proper court order and at his personal expense. The final and total loss of the boats was directly caused by natural calamities (typhoons) while under official custody, a factor beyond his control. While his initial negligence may have contributed to the property’s deterioration, the ultimate destruction was not entirely attributable to him. Consequently, the Court found him liable for simple negligence but modified the OCA’s recommended penalty. Instead of a P5,000.00 fine, the Court imposed a reduced fine of THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P3,000.00) with a warning against repetition of the offense.