Sheriff’s Duty of Custody: Liability for Negligent Loss of Seized Property

The Supreme Court has long held sheriffs to exacting standards in the discharge of their duties. Because they are agents of the law and officers of the court, their conduct must be circumscribed by a heavy burden of responsibility. In Gomez v. Concepcion (A.M. No. P-98-1283, May 9, 2000), the Court clarified that a sheriff who loses property placed under his custody may be held administratively liable for dereliction of duty — even if the loss was caused by third parties and even if the complainant later loses interest in the case.

Facts of the Case

The case arose from a vehicular accident on 10 March 1996. Sabino Ramos was driving his owner-type jeep when a passenger jeepney with Plate No. DLZ-588 bumped into him, causing damage to his vehicle and injuries to his passengers. It turned out that the offending passenger jeepney was under the custody of Deputy Sheriff Rodolfo A. Concepcion of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Cabanatuan City.

When asked to comment on the complaint, the sheriff claimed that the passenger jeepney had been carnapped in front of his residence between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. on the same day, and that he had immediately reported the incident to the Philippine National Police.

The Investigation and OCA’s Recommendation

The case was referred to Executive Judge Federico B. Fajardo, Jr. for investigation. The investigating judge recommended dismissal of the complaint, noting that the complainant had repeatedly failed to appear at hearings and that there was no evidence of personal gain on the sheriff’s part.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) disagreed. It observed that the vehicle was under custodia legis — that is, in the custody of the law. The OCA found no valid explanation for why the sheriff parked the vehicle in front of his residence instead of a secure place, thereby exposing it to thieves and carnappers.

The Applicable Rule

The OCA cited Section 4, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, which provides that when an officer takes property, he must keep it in a secure place and shall be responsible for it, ultimately delivering it to the party entitled thereto upon receiving his fees and necessary expenses.

The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA’s findings. It noted that the sheriff could have deposited the vehicle in the court premises or in any other place where security was available. The sheriff could also have charged the party entitled to the property allowable storage fees. Instead, he breached his official duty, making him answerable for the consequences of his lapses.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court found the sheriff guilty of dereliction of duty and suspended him for two months without pay, with a warning that similar acts in the future would be dealt with most severely.

In reaching this decision, the Court reiterated two important principles:

First, administrative cases do not depend on the complainant’s interest. As the Court stated in Gacho v. Fuentes, Jr. (291 SCRA 474), once the Court has taken cognizance of an administrative case, a complaint cannot be withdrawn merely on the complainant’s say-so. The complainant is essentially a witness; the case proceeds in the public interest.

Second, sheriffs must exercise prudence, caution, and attention in managing property in their custody. The Court cited Evangelista v. Penserga (242 SCRA 702) and Cunanan v. Tuazon (A.M. No. P-93-776, October 7, 1994) in emphasizing the high standards expected of sheriffs.

Practical Takeaways

• Sheriffs are strictly accountable for property in their custody. They must keep seized property in a secure place and are responsible for its safekeeping until delivery to the party entitled to it.
• Negligence need not involve bad faith or personal gain. The sheriff in this case was not shown to have leased the vehicle for profit, yet he was still held liable for carelessly exposing it to risk.
• Administrative cases may proceed even without an active complainant. Once the Court takes cognizance of a case, the complainant’s withdrawal or lack of interest will not automatically result in dismissal.
• Public officers should follow the safe storage option. Sheriffs may charge allowable storage fees, so there is no excuse for leaving property in an insecure location.
• High standards apply to all court personnel. From judges to sheriffs, everyone connected with the dispensation of justice must act with utmost responsibility.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.