G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-12-3027; January 30, 2012 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3584-P)
Case Parties/Title: LUIS P. PINEDA, Complainant, vs. NEIL T. TORRES, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Angeles City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Luis P. Pineda, owner of Victorious Bakeshop in San Fernando City, Pampanga, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Neil T. Torres, Sheriff III of the MTCC, Branch 2, Angeles City, for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The complaint stemmed from respondent’s implementation of writs of replevin issued by the MTCC of Angeles City in Civil Case Nos. 10-845 and 10-848, directing him to take possession of two Mitsubishi L-300 vans. On October 28, 2010, and November 22, 2010, respondent proceeded to the bakeshop’s premises in San Fernando City and took possession of the vehicles. Complainant alleged that respondent implemented the writs without notifying in writing the sheriff-in-charge in San Fernando City, a violation of paragraph 5 of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12. A Certification from the Clerk of Court of the MTCC of San Fernando City confirmed no request for assistance was made. Complainant further alleged that respondent threatened the security guard, Edilberto Jimenez, during the implementation. In his defense, respondent claimed the vehicles were taken lawfully, denied making threats, and stated he coordinated with the Office of the Clerk of Court in San Fernando City, but merely submitted court processes. Complainant, in his Reply, presented a security guard logbook and certified copies of the writs to show respondent arrived at the bakeshop before the writs were stamped as received by the San Fernando court, proving the lack of prior written notice and assistance.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Neil T. Torres is administratively liable for Abuse of Authority and for violating Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12 by executing court writs outside his territorial jurisdiction without the required prior written notice to and assistance from the local sheriff.

RULING

The Court found respondent GUILTY of ABUSE OF AUTHORITY and Violation of Administrative Circular No. 12. The Court emphasized that sheriffs must perform their duties with professionalism and strict adherence to rules. Administrative Circular No. 12 explicitly requires 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’s act of implementing the writs in San Fernando City, which is outside his territorial jurisdiction of Angeles City, without complying with this mandatory written notice and assistance requirement, constituted a violation of the Circular and tantamount to abuse of authority. His claim of personal coordination was insufficient; the Circular demands written notice. The requirement is based on justice, fair play, and the prevention of arbitrariness. Accordingly, the Court ordered respondent to pay a FINE of Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00), with a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.