G.R. No. P-00-1391. September 28, 2001
Librada D. Torres, complainant, vs. Nelson C. Cabesuela, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 9, Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Librada D. Torres, co-owner of San Antonio High School, alleged that a Mitsubishi Pajero owned by the school and mortgaged to Philam Savings Bank was seized pursuant to a writ of replevin issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 9. The vehicle was taken from her residence in San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, by local police officers on December 2, 1996. The seizure was effected by virtue of a “Sheriff’s Deputization” document issued by respondent Sheriff Nelson C. Cabesuela, which authorized the police officers to implement the writ on his behalf. Complainant contended that this act of deputization was without legal basis and constituted an usurpation of judicial power.
Respondent sheriff admitted issuing the deputization but claimed he acted in good faith. He explained that after finding the vehicle at a local motorshop in Nueva Ecija, he opted for “constructive seizure” by serving copies of court documents. He further stated that he issued the deputization to seek the assistance of the local police chief because he was unfamiliar with the area and believed the complainant was influential. The case was referred to the Supreme Court by the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate administrative action.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Nelson C. Cabesuela is administratively liable for issuing a “Sheriff’s Deputization” to police officers to implement a writ of replevin outside his territorial jurisdiction.

RULING

Yes, respondent sheriff is administratively liable for abuse of authority. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Court Administrator. A sheriff is a ministerial officer tasked with the personal duty to execute court writs within his jurisdiction. Administrative Circular No. 12 explicitly provides that no sheriff shall execute a court writ outside his territorial jurisdiction without first notifying in writing and seeking the assistance of the sheriff of the place where execution shall take place.
Respondent, as Sheriff of MeTC Manila, violated this rule by attempting to enforce a writ in San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, without coordinating with the local sheriff. Instead, he unlawfully delegated his mandatory duty by deputizing police officers, an act expressly prohibited under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court as held in Tordesillas v. Basco. His absence during the actual seizure and his improper delegation constitute serious misconduct and gross negligence. Sheriffs, as agents of the law, must perform their duties with due care and diligence to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. Respondent’s claim of good faith does not excuse his clear violation of established rules. Accordingly, he was found GUILTY of abuse of authority and ordered to pay a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).