A.M. No. P-2363 October 30, 1981
Nena Tordesillas, complainant, vs. Deputy Sheriff Humberto Basco, City Court, Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Nena Tordesillas charged Deputy Sheriff Humberto Basco with various offenses, including serious misconduct and gross negligence, stemming from his implementation of a warrant of seizure in Civil Case No. 044361. Tordesillas alleged that on January 8, 1980, respondent, with others, forcibly seized her Mercedes Benz parked in Malate, Manila, and that numerous valuable personal items inside the car were lost. Respondent defended his actions, stating he was merely enforcing a court order, that forcible taking was a necessary incident of the seizure, and that he denied any knowledge or liability for the missing personal articles listed by the complainant.
The case was investigated by Executive Judge Antonio Padua Paredes. His investigation revealed a critical discrepancy: the warrant authorized the seizure of a specific 1968 Mercedes Benz with Plate No. L-HG-841, but the vehicle actually seized was a 1967 model with Plate No. L-FW 899. Judge Paredes found that respondent ignored this patent dissimilarity, testifying that the plate number was “not important” to him. Furthermore, respondent improperly delegated his primary duty by allowing the plaintiff’s counsel and agents to lead the seizure, merely assisting them, contrary to the warrant addressed exclusively to the sheriff.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Humberto Basco is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the warrant of seizure.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct and gross negligence warranting dismissal. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of Executive Judge Paredes. The legal logic centers on the sheriff’s mandatory, non-delegable duties under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. A sheriff, as an officer of the court, must execute orders with utmost care and precision. Respondent’s failure to verify the identity of the property—disregarding clear identifiers like the model year and plate number—constitutes gross negligence. His defense that plate numbers could be changed does not excuse his duty to ensure the correct property is seized.
More egregiously, by allowing the plaintiff’s representatives to undertake the seizure with his mere “assistance,” respondent abdicated his official responsibility and violated the court’s directive. This delegation, coupled with his failure to conduct a proper inventory of the car’s contents, demonstrated grave misconduct. His actions showed undue interest in the plaintiff’s cause and a blatant disregard for procedural safeguards designed to protect property rights. Considering this was respondent’s second offense of serious misconduct, following a prior administrative sanction, the Court imposed the ultimate penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from future government service to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and its processes.