Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 26 2005.

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1860-P (CIGN Transport Corporation and Spouses Nerio and Rosa Maria Laiño vs. Armando De Leon II, Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 212, Mandaluyong City.)

Before us is an administrative complaint[1] against respondent Armando De Leon II, Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 212, Mandaluyong City (RTC for brevity), filed on February 6, 2004 by complainants CIGN Transport Corporation (CIGN) and the Spouses Nerio and Rosa Maria Laiño for Abuse of Authority and Gross Ignorance of the Law in connection with the enforcement of a writ of preliminary attachment in Civil Case No. MC03-2110.[2]

Complainants allege that: respondent violated the terms of the writ of preliminary attachment by enforcing it in a place other than the place of business of complainant CIGN at 288-B M. Concepcion St., San Joaquin, Pasig City or at 202 National Highway, Atienza Bldg., Bgy. Nuveva, San Pedro, Laguna, as stated in the writ;[3] respondent seized and attached on September 10, 2003 a total of ten buses of the complainants while actually in operation, six of which were then conveying passengers; specifically, he seized and attached three buses along the National Highway in Muntinlupa City, and another two buses along the National Highway in Pacita, San Pedro, Laguna forcing the passengers to get off the bus and leaving them stranded on the road; on the same date, he seized and attached four buses which were then waiting to be dispatched at CIGN's terminal in Landayan, San Pedro, Laguna; the tenth bus was seized along EDSA Crossing while plying its route on September 15, 2003, again forcing its passengers to get off the bus; the manner by which the respondent enforced the writ not only violated the terms of the writ itself but was also attended by arrogance, oppressiveness, high-handedness and abuse of authority; and, respondent implemented the writ of attachment even before the summons, together with the complaint, the application for attachment, the applicant's affidavit and bond, and the Order and Writ of Attachment, was served upon the complainant spouses who claimed to have received said court processes only on September 12, 2003 at the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC, or three days after the respondent had taken possession of the buses, which violates Section 5, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.

In his Comment with Motion to Dismiss,[4] dated March 15, 2004, respondent explains that the summons together with a copy of the complaint, the plaintiff’s affidavit and attachment bond, and the Writ of Attachment was properly served upon the complainant CIGN through Chona Mendoza, who acknowledged receipt thereof; thereafter, he asked that a security be given, whether personal or real property, the amount of which is equivalent to that which is sought under the writ, but he was declined and was instead asked to defer the implementation of the writ which he, in turn, refused; on the same day the summons was served, the writ of attachment was supposed to be enforced, however, there was no sufficient valuable property within the premises; after diligent sleuthing, he came to know that defendants' buses plying their routes, the value of which is commensurate with the claim covered by the attachment bond; thus, the writ of attachment was implemented also on September 10, 2003 by seizure of six buses in their routes.

Respondent disagrees that the writ must be enforced in the place stated in the writ or the place of business of the defendants, claiming that such procedure is only directory, especially in cases involving a moving vehicle. He maintains that the inconvenience caused to the passengers during the implementation of the writ is but incidental to the enforcement of a lawful court order. Nonetheless, the passengers were apprised with great respect throughout the enforcement. He asserts that the enforcement of the writ to the fullest is his ministerial duty as officer of the court.

Respondent likewise claims he did not violate Section 5, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court since the buses were seized from the defendant corporation after a valid service of summons. Said corporation is an entity distinct and separate from the defendants-spouses Laiño who, while not served with summons, were nonetheless not affected by the implementation of the writ.

In a Resolution,[5] dated September 20, 2004, the Court required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed.

In compliance, complainants filed their "Motion to Consider The Case Submitted for Resolution" dated October 12, 2004.[6] Respondent filed his manifestation dated October 15, 2004 praying for the dismissal of the complaint.[7]

In its Evaluation Report, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommends the exoneration of respondent from the charge of exceeding his authority in attaching the properties involved. The OCA opines:

Although the writ of attachment issued by the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 212, Mandaluyong City, commanded the sheriff concerned to attach the defendants' estate in the place mentioned in the writ, the Order issued by the RTC which granted the application for preliminary attachment, does not require that the attachment be effected in a specified place. At any rate, the Rules of Court allows the sheriff to attach so much of the property in the Philippines of the party against whom the writ is issued. xxx

Thus, the fact that the respondent attached the ten passenger buses of herein complainants on a place other than that stated in the writ, six of which were transporting passengers along their routes, does not make him liable on this ground alone. Moreover, respondent availed himself of this recourse only after ascertaining that there was no sufficient valuable property within the defendants' premises. It is likewise apparent that in implementing the writ, the respondent took into account the mobile character of the objects he was to seize and their susceptibility of being concealed. Under the circumstances, the respondent merely employed such means as are reasonably necessary in order not to defeat the purpose of the writ.

Neither did the respondent sheriff violate Section 5 of Rule 57. Complainant spouses failed to allege, much less show, in their complaint that the buses attached were theirs and not that of CIGN Transport Corporation. This underscores the interest, if not ownership, of CIGN Transport Corporation over those buses. Thus, service upon the CIGN Transport Corporation of the summons, together with a copy of the Complaint, the plaintiffs affidavit and attachment bond, and the Writ of Attachment on September 10, 2003, was sufficient to render valid the subsequent enforcement of the Writ of Attachment also on the same day. Further, records show that complainant spouses Nerio and Rosa Maria Laiño are the principal stockholders of CIGN Transport Corporation. Nerio Laiño is likewise the President of the corporation. Thus, service of the summons on CIGN Transport Corporation may also be deemed service thereof upon the complainant spouses.

Finally, complainants' allegation that respondent sheriff was arrogant, oppressive and high-handed when he attached the six buses while actually transporting passengers has not been substantiated. Such allegation must fail.

The recommendation of the OCA is well-taken.

Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice. They form an integral part thereof because they are called upon to serve court writs, execute all processes, and carry into effect the orders of the court with due care and utmost diligence. As agents of the law, high standards are expected of them.[8] Sheriffs must never be cavalier in their attitude in the implementation of writs of attachment; instead, they should strictly follow the rules relative thereto.[9]

Section 5, Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure mandates the sheriff to enforce the writ without delay and with all reasonable diligence by attaching only so much of the property in the Philippines of the party against whom the writ is issued, thus:

Section 5. Manner of attaching the property. - The sheriff enforcing the writ shall without delay and with all reasonable diligence attach, to await judgment and execution in the action, only so much of the property in the Philippines of the party against whom the writ is issued, not exempt from execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant's demand, unless the former makes a deposit with the court from which the writ is issued, or gives a counter-bond executed to the applicant, in an amount equal to the bond fixed by the court in the order of attachment or to the value of the property to be attached, exclusive of cost. No levy on attachment pursuant to the writ issued under Section 2 hereof shall be enforced unless it is preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by service of summons, together with a copy of the complaint, the application for attachment, the applicant's affidavit and bond, and the order and writ of attachment, on the defendant within the Philippines.

Thus, there is no merit to complainants' claim that the writ can only be enforced in their place of business as stated in the writ since a writ of attachment is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines where the defendant has a property, real or personal. If the rule were otherwise, it creates an absurd situation where parties can evade enforcement of the writ by simply moving their properties out of the address stated in the writ. We agree with the observations of the OCA that the mobile character of complainants' properties necessitated the enforcement of the writ in such manner.

Complainants Laiño spouses' contention that respondent implemented the writ without prior service of summons upon them is likewise untenable. The writ was principally for the attachment and seizure of properties of complainant CIGN, not properties of the Laiño spouses. Thus, the summons served upon CIGN, through Chona Mendoza,[10] its Assistant Corporate Secretary,[11] was sufficient compliance of the Rules insofar as the issuance of the writ of attachment is concerned. The personality of CIGN is separate and distinct from those of Laiño spouses who are principal stockholders of CIGN; and in the case of Nerio, the President of CIGN. In any event, no properties of complainant Laiño spouses were seized and attached by respondent.

Lastly, complainants' allegation that respondent sheriff was arrogant, oppressive and high-handed when he attached the six buses while actually transporting passengers remains unsubstantiated. Needless to stress, in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint.[12] In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that a sheriff has regularly performed his official duty.[13]

It is worthwhile to reiterate that when a writ is placed in the hands of the sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to implement it in accordance with its mandate.[14] He is supposed to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter, if he fails to comply, he is liable to the person in whose favor the process or writ runs. His duty to do so is ministerial and not directory,[15] and one which he must accomplish as early as possible.[16]Verily, in this case, respondent acted within the bounds of his duty in the enforcement of the writ of preliminary attachment.

WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Sheriff Armando De Leon II is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court

[1] Rollo, p.1.

[2] Entitled “Pilipinas Automotive Credit Corp. vs. CIGN Transport Corp. and Sps. Nerio P. and Rosa Ma. G. Laiño” for sum of money with prayer for ex-parte issuance of writ of preliminary attachment.

[3] The writ reads in part:

WE THEREFORE command that you attach the estate, real or personal, not exempt from execution of herein defendants in the place mentioned to the value of the said demands and cost of suit and that you safely keeps the same according to the said Rules of Court, unless the said defendants give security to pay such judgment as maybe recovered in the said action, in the manner specifically provided in the Rules of Court immediately after execution thereof, make a return of this Writ to the Court from which the Order was attached with full statement of the proceedings and a complete inventory of the properties attached together with the counter bond, if any given by the party against whom the attachments was issued. Id, p.56.

[4] Id., p. 60.

[5] Id., p. 68.

[6] Id., p. 70.

[7] Id., p. 69.

[8] Alabastro vs. Moncada, A.M. No. P-04-1887, December 16, 2004; Wenceslao vs. Madrazo, 247 SCRA 696, 702-703 (1995).

[9] Villanueva-Fabella vs. Lee, 419 SCRA 440, 452 (2004), citing Lirio vs. Ramos 331 Phil. 378, 389(1996); Gruenberg vs. Court of Appeals, 138 SCRA 471,477-478 (1985); Salas vs. Adil, 90 SCRA 121, 125 (1979).

[10] Rollo, p. 62.

[11] Id., p. 58.

[12] Sinnot vs. barte, 372 SCRA 282, 292 (2001); Lorena vs. Encomienda, 302 SCRA 632, 641 (1999).

[13] Onquit vs. Binamira-Parcia, 297 SCRA 354, 364 (1998); Navale vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 705, 710 (1996).

[14] Francisco vs. Cruz, 340 SCRA 76, 85 (2000); Mamanteo vs. Magumum, 311 SCRA 259, 265 (1999).

[15] Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Torio, 284 SCRA 67, 74 (1998).

[16] Vda. De Tisado vs. Tablizo, 253 SCRA 646, 652 (1996).