A.M. No. P-2230. April 30, 1980.
ANTONIO BAUTISTA, complainant, vs. PASTOR DE CASTRO, JR., Provincial Sheriff, and ATILANO NANQUIL, Deputy Provincial Sheriff, both of the Province of Zambales, respondents.

FACTS

The complainant, representing plaintiff Trinidad Estonina in a civil case, charged respondents Provincial Sheriff Pastor de Castro, Jr. and Deputy Sheriff Atilano Nanquil with dereliction of duty. The charge stemmed from their failure to fully implement a writ of attachment issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila against defendants Tomas and Mercedes Alferos. On March 6, 1979, Deputy Sheriff Nanquil levied on personal properties at the Alferos residence but, allegedly due to the defendants’ aggressive opposition, did not take physical custody of the attached items. Instead, he allowed the properties to remain on the premises based on an agreement for the defendants to post a counterbond by March 9, 1979. No counterbond was posted, and the properties were never removed. Furthermore, the respondents failed to make a timely return on the writ of attachment.
In their defense, the sheriffs claimed they acted prudently to avoid conflict and unnecessary storage costs, arguing that the defendants’ valuable residence was sufficient security. They also contended that the defendants’ motion to quash the writ and their failure to post a bond justified the delay. Deputy Sheriff Nanquil eventually filed a return on June 16, 1979, over three months after the levy and only after the administrative complaint was filed.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Provincial Sheriff de Castro, Jr. and Deputy Sheriff Nanquil are administratively liable for dereliction of duty for their failure to properly implement a writ of attachment and to make a timely return thereon.

RULING

Yes, the respondents are administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the investigating judge, which were supported by the evidence. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory duties of a sheriff under the Rules of Court. Rule 57, Section 7 requires that attached personal property must be taken into the sheriff’s custody unless the defendant posts a counterbond. The respondents failed to do this; they left the levied properties in the defendant’s possession without the required bond, thereby compromising the purpose of the writ, which is to secure the property for eventual execution. Their justification—facing opposition and attempting to save costs—is legally insufficient. Sheriffs are empowered and duty-bound to seek police assistance to overcome resistance and execute court orders effectively.
Furthermore, Rule 57, Section 6 mandates the sheriff to make a return on the writ immediately after its implementation. The respondents’ delay of 101 days until June 16, 1979, constituted a clear violation of this rule. Their inaction hindered the plaintiff’s ability to seek an alias writ and undermined the judicial process. While considering their long years of service, the Court imposed differentiated penalties: Deputy Sheriff Nanquil, as the officer directly tasked with enforcement, was suspended for thirty days without pay. Provincial Sheriff de Castro, Jr., as the supervising officer who failed to ensure proper execution, was fined an amount equivalent to fifteen days’ salary.