AM 2436; (November, 1981) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-2436. November 25, 1981.
WEAREVER TEXTILE MILLS, INC., complainant, vs. DEPUTY SHERIFF SERGIO E. BAGAYBAGAYAN, Court of First Instance of Manila, respondent.
FACTS
Wearever Textile Mills, Inc. filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Sergio E. Bagaybagayan for irregular enforcement of a writ of preliminary attachment in a civil case. The complainant alleged that the respondent, accompanied by armed companions, forcibly broke open the factory compound gate and carted away motor vehicles and office equipment. This was done despite a prior understanding that the attached properties would remain on-site under sheriff’s guard.
In his defense, Bagaybagayan denied any irregularity, claiming he implemented the writ in accordance with the Rules of Court. He asserted that the complainant’s officers became angry when he refused to suspend enforcement while they contacted high-ranking officials. He maintained there was no untoward incident during the levy.
ISSUE
Whether Deputy Sheriff Sergio E. Bagaybagayan committed an irregularity in the enforcement of the writ of preliminary attachment.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is guilty of irregular enforcement. The Supreme Court adopted the factual findings of the investigating judge, which were supported by the evidence. The credible evidence established that Bagaybagayan, after initially agreeing to leave the levied vehicles until the following morning, later decided to move them. He employed armed men, who were not in uniform, to assist him. When the security guards refused to open the gate, he ordered it forcibly opened without securing a court order for such action.
The legal logic centers on the proper conduct required of a sheriff as an officer of the court. A sheriff’s authority in executing writs must be exercised with prudence, circumspection, and, most importantly, within the bounds of the law. The use of armed, non-uniformed personnel created an intimidating atmosphere that exceeded the reasonable force permissible for executing a civil writ. Furthermore, forcibly opening the gate without judicial authorization constituted an abuse of authority and a failure to perform his duties with the requisite propriety and restraint. His actions demonstrated a lack of judgment and tarnished the integrity of the court process. Consequently, the Court found him guilty of irregular enforcement. The penalty of a fine equivalent to one month’s salary was deemed appropriate, with a warning for future conduct.