AM RTJ 93 1008; (November, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. RTJ-93-1008 November 14, 1994
Teresita P. Arellano, petitioner, vs. Judge Napoleon R. Flojo, Felino Bangalan, Clerk of Court III, Herminio del Castillo, RTC-OCC; Lucino Jove, Deputy Sheriff, respondents.
FACTS
Teresita P. Arellano, the defendant in Civil Case No. 11-1041, filed an administrative complaint against several court personnel from the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan. The charges included neglect of duty, misconduct, bias, and partiality. Specifically, she alleged that Judge Napoleon R. Flojo irregularly issued a writ of attachment without legal basis. She charged Clerk of Court Felino Bangalan with issuing the writ despite the plaintiffs’ failure to post the required P100,000 bond and with deliberately delaying the service of summons. She also accused Deputy Sheriff Lucino Jove of wrongfully seizing a vehicle not owned by her and improperly entrusting its custody, leading to its cannibalization. The complaints against Judge Flojo and Branch Clerk Herminio del Castillo were subsequently dismissed by the Court.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Felino Bangalan and Lucino Jove are administratively liable for their actions in connection with the issuance and implementation of the writ of attachment.
RULING
Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. The Court, adopting the findings of the investigating justice and the Office of the Court Administrator, held that Bangalan, then the Acting Clerk of Court, was negligent. He issued the writ of attachment based merely on a promissory note in the form of an affidavit, which did not constitute the acceptable bond required under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. A valid bond is a jurisdictional prerequisite for a valid attachment; its absence renders the writ invalid. While the Court did not find deliberate bad faith in the delay of summons, Bangalan’s failure to ensure the posting of a proper bond was a serious oversight.
Regarding Sheriff Jove, the Court found him liable for failing to exercise due diligence. He attached a cargo truck without verifying its ownership, which was later judicially determined to belong to Arellano’s father, not to her as the judgment debtor. A sheriff has no authority to attach property not owned by the defendant, and such wrongful levy incurs liability. However, the Court exonerated him on the charge of improperly entrusting custody, noting practical necessity and that separate liability was imposed on the sheriff guards for the vehicle’s cannibalization. The Court modified the recommended penalty of suspension, imposing instead a fine of P5,000.00 each on Bangalan and Jove.