AM P 07 2384; (June, 2008) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-07-2384; June 18, 2008
Kenneth Hao, complainant, vs. Abe C. Andres, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Davao City, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Kenneth Hao was a defendant in a replevin case. Respondent Sheriff Abe C. Andres implemented an Order of Seizure, taking nine motor vehicles. Hao alleged the implementation was oppressive, involving armed personnel and undue advantage to the plaintiff, Zenaida Silver. The seized vehicles were stored in a compound owned by Silver. Upon court order to return the vehicles after Hao posted a counter-bond, eight vehicles were discovered missing.
Andres denied the allegations, claiming standard police assistance was used and that he had placed the vehicles under police guard. He reported that a key duplication incident occurred but maintained the vehicles were intact when he last checked. Hao accused Andres of conspiring in the disappearance, concealing depository receipts, and allowing Silver’s counsel to influence the selection of guards.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Abe C. Andres is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of seizure and safeguarding the seized properties.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and Oppression. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the investigating judge, which revealed serious irregularities. Andres failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of a sheriff as an officer of the court in handling properties in custodia legis. His actions demonstrated a lack of fairness and neutrality.
The legal logic is anchored on the sheriff’s mandatory duty under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. This rule requires a sheriff to ensure that properties seized are securely kept, with expenses for safekeeping to be estimated, approved by the court, and deposited by the interested party before execution. Andres violated this procedure by consulting with the plaintiff’s counsel on implementation, allowing the storage of vehicles in the plaintiff’s own compound, and failing to secure a proper deposit for guard fees. This abdication of his independent responsibility directly led to the insecure environment that resulted in the vehicles’ loss. His conduct in the seizure, showing partiality and excessive force, constituted oppression. The Court found the mitigating circumstance of length of service but, given the gravity of the neglect resulting in significant loss, imposed a one-year suspension without pay.