AM P 00 1432; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-00-1432. October 19, 2000
JOSE C. SARMIENTO, complainant, vs. ROMULO C. VICTORIA, SHERIFF IV, RTC, BRANCH 157, PASIG CITY, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Jose C. Sarmiento was a defendant in a civil case for sum of money. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. Respondent Sheriff Romulo C. Victoria implemented the writ by levying on Sarmiento’s personal and real properties. Sarmiento charged the sheriff with Grave Abuse of Authority and Gross Misconduct. He alleged that the sheriff violated Section 7(b), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court by depositing the attached personal properties in the warehouse of the plaintiff, Jose C. Singson. Sarmiento also claimed the sheriff influenced his daughter to consent to this deposit and that there was an “over-levy” as the total estimated value of attached properties exceeded the attachment bond.
In his defense, the sheriff admitted the deposit at the plaintiff’s warehouse but claimed this was an exercise of his best judgment due to time constraints and the court’s lack of storage space. He denied the “over-levy” allegation, arguing that the acquisition cost valuations did not reflect depreciated market value and that the true value would only be ascertained at a public auction. He also noted that the trial judge had already ordered the return of some items.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Romulo C. Victoria is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of preliminary attachment.
RULING
Yes, but only for the improper deposit of the attached properties, not for the alleged “over-levy.” The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) correctly exculpated the sheriff from the charges of exceeding his authority regarding the levy and valuation of properties. A sheriff’s role in executing a writ is purely ministerial. It is not his duty to determine if properties are exempt from execution or to make precise valuations at the time of levy; such objections must be raised by the judgment obligor before the court. The law does not require the value of attached property to exactly match the judgment debt, and final valuation is determined at a public auction.
However, the Court found the sheriff administratively liable for depositing the attached personal properties in the plaintiff’s warehouse. Section 7(b), Rule 57 mandates that the sheriff must take and safely keep attached personal property capable of manual delivery “in his custody.” By depositing the properties with a party to the case, the sheriff failed to maintain exclusive control and substantial possession over them, as required by jurisprudence. His excuse of lack of time was unacceptable, as it demonstrated a failure to exercise the diligence required of a court officer. His actions fell short of the propriety and decorum expected from all personnel involved in the dispensation of justice. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Three Thousand Pesos (₱3,000.00), to be charged against his retirement benefits.