Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > March 2008 Resolutions > [A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2548-P : March 12, 2008] SANCTUARY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION V. SHERIFF FRANKLIN DAZO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 84, QUEZON CITY:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated 12 March 2008:

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2548-P (Sanctuary Real Estate Development Corporation v. Sheriff Franklin Dazo, Regional Trial Court, Branch 84, Quezon City)

This is an administrative complaint of Sanctuary Real Estate Development Corporation (SREDC) against respondent Sheriff Franklin E. Dazo, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 84, Quezon City, charging him with abuse of authority. SREDC is the defendant in an application by ABE International College of Accountancy (ABE) for a writ of replevin.

Sometime in 2002, SREDC and ABE entered into a 10-year lease contract that provided for a right to pre-terminate clause. Before occupancy of the units, all tenants of the building were also notified of the company policies, e.g. Disconnection of Electricity for non-payment of electricity and rent; Denial of Gate Pass to remove any property out of the premises until such time when all due obligations were paid by the tenant, among others.

ABE became delinquent in its rental payments and in mid-2004, SREDC discovered that nursing students occupied the ABE units as sublessees. ABE, for its part, pointed out that the contract had no prohibition on sub-leasing; that the nursing school was a sister school under the management of the AMA Educational System; and that ABE had merged with the St. Augustine School of Nursing. But, upon verification with the Securities and Exchange Commission, SREDC learned that there was no such merger. Although ABE opted to pre-terminate the contract of lease effective October 2006, SREDC refused to issue gate passes to ABE so the latter could not remove its properties out of the premises. SREDC required ABE to inventory its properties inside the units and meet with the former for a possible amicable settlement but, instead, ABE obtained a Writ of Replevin on November 7, 2006 from the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 84 in Quezon City. To implement the Writ of Replevin, Sheriff Dazo was ordered to get the assistance of law enforcement officers and the Ex-Officio Sheriff of the RTC in Urdaneta City.

Thereafter, on December 14, 2006, SREDC filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) a complaint against Sheriff Dazo, alleging that Sheriff Dazo abused his authority when (1) he did not seek the assistance of the Ex-Officio Sheriff of the RTC in Urdaneta City as instructed by the Clerk of Court of the RTC in Quezon City; (2) he took with him nine armed, uniformed policemen instead of only three when he went to the premises; (3) he served his Sheriffs Return and had it received not by an officer of the corporation as required by Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, but by one Sonia C. Labuanan, an Assistant Administrative Officer of SREDC; (4) he immediately transferred the properties of ABE to a building owned by ABE, in violation of Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court, requiring that the property subject of the replevin should be in the custody of the sheriff and only after five days shall these be turned over to the applicant if the defendant fails to post a counter bond not to place the properties in the possession of the applicant; and (5) he introduced an unidentified woman as Sheriff from Quezon City.

Sheriff Dazo denied the accusations against him. He explained that after he received the Order granting the writ of replevin, on November 10, 2006, he proceeded to Urdaneta City and served the Notice of Coordination to the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the RTC in Urdaneta City. Then with the representatives of ABE, he went to the Urdaneta City Police Station to seek police assistance. He requested for three police officers to assist him but was given four. He averred he had no knowledge of the presence of the other five officers. He said that he served the summons on the writ to Labuanan only after he had talked about it to SREDC President Chanda R. Shahani on the phone. He explained that his attempts to serve the summons on the writ to the officers of SREDC proved futile because they refused to receive the summons. Lastly, Sheriff Dazo

explained that it was impractical to bring all the properties subject of the writ to Manila so he deemed it best to just store these in the building of ABE that he considered a "secure place." He maintained that even if he stored them there he was still in constructive possession of these. After five days, he delivered the properties to Arty. Niel Velasco, representative of ABE.

After investigation and evaluation of the reports and records, the OCA found that (1) Sheriff Dazo could not be faulted for the presence of more than the three policemen as part of the "relieving team"; (2) his claim that he had talked to the president of SREDC before he served the summons to Labuanan could not be taken at face value since his claim was uncorroborated; (3) the allegation that the service of summons to Labuanan was invalid was a judicial question better addressed to the courts; (4) it was imprudent and irregular of Sheriff Dazo to store the properties in the building of ABE because this violated Sec. 4, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court and besides, he could have easily sought the help of the Clerk of Court or Sheriff of the RTC in Urdaneta City for a more suitable and less controversial storage. According to the OCA, Sheriff Dazo's hasty delivery of the properties to ABE puts in doubt his claim that he had regularly performed his duties. The OCA recommended that Sheriff Dazo be fined in the amount equivalent to his salary for one month.

We find the evaluation and recommendation of the OCA in order. Sec. 4, Rule 60 is categorical on the duties of the sheriff upon receiving an order regarding properties subject of replevin. Sec. 4 states:

Section 4. Duty of the Sheriff.�Upon receiving such order, the sheriff must serve a copy thereof on the adverse party, together with a copy of the application, affidavit and bond, and must forthwith take the property, if it be in the possession of the adverse party, or his agent, and retain it in his custody. If the property or any part thereof be concealed in a building or enclosure, the sheriff must demand its delivery, and if it be not delivered, he must cause the building or enclosure to be broken open and take the property into his possession. After the sheriff has taken possession of the property as herein provided, he must keep it in a secure place and shall be responsible for its delivery to the party entitled thereto upon receiving his fees and necessary expenses for taking and keeping the same.

Courts are without jurisdiction to order the sheriff to deliver personal property to another party if property is under attachment.

In storing the properties seized under replevin in a building owned by the applicant for the writ in clear violation of Rule 4, Sheriff Dazo had in effect prematurely delivered to ABE the actual possession of the properties. Sheriff Dazo's avowed reasons for doing so are disingenuous to say the least. Sheriffs are duty-bound to know the basic rules relative to the implementation of writs. They should strictly comply with the applicable rules and circulars in implementing court orders lest they undermine the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice.^[1] As front-liners in the administration of justice, they cannot be cavalier in the implementation of the rules on execution of the writ because such an attitude would inevitably negatively reflect on the earnestness of the judiciary to uphold the trust of the people in the courts.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby imposes on FRANKLIN DAZO, Sheriff IV of the RTC, Branch 84 in Quezon City, the penalty of FINE in the amount equivalent to his one (1) month salary with warning that a repetition of the same would be meted a more severe penalty.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] PNB Management and Development Corporation v. Cachero, A.M. No. P-03-I731, November 30,2006, 509 SCRA 28, 40.