THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-13-3106. April 3, 2013.][Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3463-P]
EDUARDO S. RAMOS, complainant, vs. CARLOS Q. BARREDO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Manila, appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 3, 2013, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-13-3106 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3463-P] (Eduardo S. Ramos v. Carlos Q. Barredo, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Manila). — For consideration is the administrative complaint filed by Eduardo S. Ramos (Ramos) against Sheriff Carlos Q. Barredo (Sheriff Barredo) for Abuse of Authority relative to Civil Case No. 09-122496, entitled "Larrynel A. Tugade v. Nelson T. Ramos," an action for Collection of Sum of Money with prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment.
In his complaint, Ramos alleged that he was one of the owners of Ed Ramos & Co., Incorporated and the registered owner of a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 238402 located at 554 Altura Street, Sampaloc, Manila. On February 5, 2012, he was informed by his neighbor that there were several armed policemen forcibly opening the steel gate of his property at the said address. He immediately proceeded to the place and saw several policemen assisting about four (4) men who had already destroyed the steel gate of his property. Upon inquiry, Sheriff Barredo showed him a copy of the Writ of Preliminary Attachment issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Manila (RTC). Upon seeing the writ, he told Sheriff Barredo that the defendant in the case was a certain Nelson T. Ramos (defendant) who did not reside in the property which they illegally entered. He still allowed Sheriff Barredo and one Atty. Albert Lee G. Angeles (Atty. Angeles) to enter his premises despite his protest against the drastic implementation of the writ. While inside, Sheriff Barredo found no property belonging to the defendant. Atty. Angeles arrogantly told him to file his claim on the surety bond posted before the RTC. Sheriff Barredo left the premises without an apology. cDSAEI
In his comment, Sheriff Barredo claimed that he received a copy of the Writ of Preliminary Attachment and Summons on January 11, 2010. On the same day, he went to the given address of defendant with Atty. Angeles, the counsel for plaintiffs. When they arrived, they were refused entry despite repeated pleas to open the gates which remained padlocked. On January 20, 2010, they returned to the address but the gates still remained closed. On suggestion of Atty. Angeles, he called the defendant who told him that he specifically instructed his people not to receive anything from them. This prompted Atty. Angeles to move for the issuance of an Amended Writ of Preliminary Attachment and Alias Summons which was subsequently granted by the RTC on January 25, 2010. In the alias writ and alias summons, the address of defendant was amended to include 554 Altura Street, Sta. Mesa, Sampaloc, Manila.
On February 2, 2010, he and several police officers proceeded to the address. Upon arrival, the gate was padlocked and they were refused entry. He claimed that he exerted diligent efforts to persuade the occupant of the defendant's house to allow them entry, but to no avail. On February 4, 2010, Atty. Angeles filed an ex-parte motion to break-open the premises of defendant at the amended address. This was granted by the RTC.
On February 5, 2010, he enforced the break-open order. At about the same time when the gates were forcibly opened, he noticed a white car speeding towards the direction of defendant's address. The complainant who alighted from the car introduced himself as Eduardo S. Ramos, a former military officer. He politely informed Ramos that the bond filed by plaintiff with the RTC would answer for whatever damage that might be caused to the premises. In order to avoid any untoward incident, he left the premises without taking anything. He insisted that he acted within the parameters of his duties as an officer of the court and was entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.
In his Reply, Ramos pointed out that the records would show that he was not the defendant in the case and that the address stated therein was 821 Sto. Cristo Street, Binondo, Manila. He argued that Sheriff Barredo failed to exercise due diligence. He should have first inquired on the ownership of the property. He acted in bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence causing undue damage to his private property.
On this, Sheriff Barredo commented that the return address of Ramos indicated in the envelope containing his Reply in this case was 821 Sto. Cristo Street, Binondo, Manila. He likewise pointed out that the business address of defendant, as stated in his business cards and advertisement of his car restoration shop, was 554 Altura Street, Sampaloc, Manila. aATEDS
In its Resolution, dated June 6, 2011, the Court adopted the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to refer the case to the Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Manila, for investigation, report and recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of the records.
In his Report and Recommendation, dated November 28, 2011, Executive Judge Marino M. dela Cruz, Jr. recommended the dismissal of the charge of Abuse of Authority. He, however, also recommended that a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000) be imposed against Sheriff Barredo for his delay in the submission of the Sheriff's Return, the same being constitutive of neglect of duty.
In its Memorandum, dated June 2, 2003, the OCA adopted the above recommendation.
The Court agrees, but with respect to the dismissal of the principal charge only.
Abuse of authority has been defined as a misdemeanor committed by a public officer, who under color of his office, wrongfully inflicts upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment or other injury; it is an act of cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority. 1
In this case, the documentary and testimonial evidence of the parties show that defendant is the nephew of Ramos, both of whom use two addresses interchangeably. The residential address of defendant at 821 Sto. Cristo St., Binondo, Manila, is also the business address of Ramos, while the business address of Ramos at 554 Altura Street, Sampaloc, Manila is the residential address of Ramos. aASEcH
This clearly shows that Sheriff Barredo had a basis in enforcing the orders of the RTC at the address subject of the writ of preliminary attachment and break-open order. It is a settled rule that the sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ issued by a court is purely ministerial. 2 When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate. He is to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter. 3 Hence, no abuse of authority could be attributed to Sheriff Barredo as he merely relied on the address stated in the court orders. He was not duty-bound to conduct an investigation concerning the ownership of the property subject of the writ to be enforced. In fact, his actions in breaking the complainant's steel gate to gain entry was authorized by the RTC per its Order, dated February 4, 2010, subject to the payment of bond in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), to answer for the damages which defendant might suffer by reason of the said break-open order.
Anent the delay in the return of the service of summons, however, Sheriff Barredo obviously violated the mandate of Section 6, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, 4 which makes it mandatory for sheriffs to make a return to the court without delay. Indeed, Sheriff Barredo's return which was submitted on October 3, 2011 or almost twenty (20) months after the implementation of the subject writ on February 5, 2010, was long overdue.
This omission amounts to simple neglect of duty. Sheriffs must never be cavalier in their implementation of writs of attachment. Instead, they should strictly follow the rules relative thereto, including the making of prompt returns thereof, because attachment is harsh, extraordinary and summary in nature; it is a rigorous remedy which exposes the debtor to humiliation and annoyance. 5
As agents of the law, sheriffs are called upon to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence because in serving the court's writs and processes and implementing its order, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice. 6
Considering, however, that the delay is not one of the original charges against Sheriff Barredo and that it is his first offense, no penalty will be imposed upon him at this time. He should, however, be warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to partially ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. Accordingly, the charge of abuse of authority against Carlos Q. Barredo, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Manila, in the execution of the writ of preliminary attachment and amended writ of preliminary attachment is hereby DISMISSED. TaSEHD
As to the finding of NEGLECT OF DUTY for the delay in the submission of the Sheriff's Return, Sheriff Barredo is hereby STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rafael v. Sualog, A.M. No. P-07-2330, June 12, 2008, 554 SCRA 278, 287; citing Aranda, Jr. v. Alvarez, A.M. No. P-04-1889, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 162.
2.Evangelista v. Penserga, A.M. No. P-92-766, 27 March 1995.
3.Casiano Wenceslao v. Restituto Madrazo, Deputy Sheriff, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 7, Davao City, A.M. No. P-92-768, August 28, 1995 citing Padilla v. Arabia, A.M. No. 93-774, March 8, 1995, Junio v. Egay-Eviota, 231 SCRA 551 (1994), and Eduarte v. Ramos, 238 SCRA 36 (1994).
4.Sheriff's return — After enforcing the writ, the sheriff must likewise without delay make a return thereon to the court from which the writ issued, with a full statement of his proceedings under the writ and a complete inventory of the property attached, together with any counter-bond given by the party against whom attachment is issued, and serve copies thereof on the applicant.
5.Salgado v. Court of Appeals, 128 SCRA 395 (1984).
6.Sasing v. Celestial Venus G. Gelbolingo, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, A.M. No. P-12-3032, February 20, 2013.