Sheriffs Must Strictly Adhere to Court Orders in Attachment Proceedings

n

A.M. No. P-96-1184, March 24, 1997

n

Imagine a scenario where a sheriff, tasked with securing a vehicle under a writ of attachment, decides it’s best to leave the vehicle with the creditor instead of taking it into official custody. Sounds convenient, right? But what if that decision opens the door to potential abuse and prejudice? This case underscores the critical importance of sheriffs adhering strictly to court orders and established procedures when executing writs of attachment.

n

In National Bureau of Investigation vs. Tuliao, the Supreme Court addressed the administrative liability of a sheriff who failed to properly execute a writ of attachment. The sheriff, instead of taking possession of the attached property (a passenger jeep), left it with the creditor, citing a lack of storage facilities. This decision highlights the principle that sheriffs, as officers of the court, must meticulously follow the prescribed procedures for attachment to protect the rights of all parties involved.

nn

Understanding Writs of Attachment in the Philippines

n

A writ of attachment is a legal tool that allows a court to seize a defendant’s property to ensure that a judgment, if obtained, can be satisfied. It’s a provisional remedy governed by Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. This rule outlines the specific steps a sheriff must take to properly attach property. The purpose is to hold the property as security pending the outcome of the case.

n

Rule 57, Section 5 of the Rules of Court states: “Manner of attaching property.– The officer executing the order shall without delay attach, to await judgment and execution in the action, all the properties of the party against whom the order is issued in the province, x x x.”

n

Section 7(c) further clarifies the procedure for personal property capable of manual delivery: “Personal property capable of manual delivery, by taking and safely keeping it in his capacity, after issuing the corresponding receipt therefor.”

n

For example, if a court issues a writ of attachment against a business owner’s inventory, the sheriff must physically take possession of the inventory and store it securely until the case is resolved. Simply informing the business owner that the inventory is under attachment is not sufficient.

nn

The Case of Sheriff Tuliao: A Breach of Duty

n

The case began when Santiago Salvador purchased a passenger jeep from Lito Ignacio, agreeing to pay in installments. After a payment dispute, Ignacio filed a collection suit, and the court ordered the attachment of the jeep. Sheriff Tuliao, instead of taking the jeep into his custody, released it to Ignacio, who promised to produce it when required. Salvador filed a motion to discharge the attachment by posting a counterbond, which the court approved, ordering the sheriff to release the jeep to Salvador. Tuliao failed to comply with the court’s order.

n

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

n

n
• Payment Dispute: Salvador and Ignacio disagreed over installment payments.

n

• Attachment Order: The court ordered Sheriff Tuliao to attach the jeep.

n

• Improper Execution: Tuliao released the jeep to Ignacio instead of taking it into custody.

n

• Counterbond Approved: The court approved Salvador’s counterbond and ordered the jeep’s release to him.

n

• Non-Compliance: Tuliao failed to release the jeep to Salvador.

n

n

The Supreme Court emphasized the sheriff’s deviation from established procedure, stating,