A.M. No. 1243. January 31, 1978.
FELICITAS SALAZAR-CHOCO, BIBIANO SALAZAR and WARLITO CHOCO, complainants, vs. DEMETRIO S. VILLAFLOR, Deputy Sheriff of the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Davao City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants were defendants in Civil Case No. 7809 for recovery of a sum of money. The court issued a writ of preliminary attachment on February 5, 1973, specifically directing the sheriff to attach defendants’ properties “in such value as not to exceed the claim set forth in the complaint,” which was approximately P28,000.00. Respondent Deputy Sheriff Demetrio S. Villaflor, however, attached twenty-one (21) motor vehicles registered in the name of complainant Felicitas Salazar. The complainants alleged the total assessed value of these vehicles was P105,000.00, far exceeding the claim in the civil case.
Despite demands from the complainants to release the excess vehicles, the respondent sheriff refused and even threatened to impound more vehicles. This compelled the complainants to seek judicial intervention. Consequently, the Court of First Instance of Davao issued an order on February 9, 1973, directing the respondent to immediately release fifteen (15) of the attached units, leaving only six (6) units—a number deemed sufficient to answer the plaintiffs’ claim.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Demetrio S. Villaflor is administratively liable for misconduct for attaching properties with a value grossly in excess of the amount specified in the court’s writ of attachment.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed the investigating judge’s findings and recommendation. The court’s order for attachment was explicit and ministerial: the sheriff was to attach property only up to the value necessary to secure the claim of about P28,000.00. The respondent’s act of attaching properties valued at a minimum of P63,000.00 (using his own lower estimate) and up to P105,000.00 constituted a clear violation of this direct order.
The Court rejected the respondent’s defense that he was merely performing a ministerial duty and that he was uncertain about ownership or auction values. His duty was not purely mechanical; it required the exercise of sound judgment to ensure the attachment was not excessive. His refusal to release the excess vehicles upon the defendants’ demand, necessitating a court order to correct his action, demonstrated gross negligence and evident bad faith. Such conduct amounted to abuse of authority and harassment, causing undue prejudice to the complainants. Therefore, the Supreme Court imposed a penalty of one (1) month suspension without pay, with a warning for future infractions.