Sheriffs’ Misconduct Enforcing Writs With Due Diligence and Respect for Court Orders

Sheriffs occupy a critical position in the judicial system. They execute the courts’ writs and processes, and their actions directly affect the rights and property of litigants and third parties. When a sheriff acts with less than the required diligence—or worse, defies a court order—the consequences can be severe. In Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation v. Lamano (A.M. No. P-06-2198, September 19, 2007), the Supreme Court reminded sheriffs of their duty to exercise reasonable skill and circumspection in enforcing writs, and to respect the authority of all courts.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation (SLECC) operated Sta. Lucia Mall. In April 2004, respondent Sheriff Conrado G. Lamano served a notice of garnishment on SLECC’s tenants, pursuant to a writ of preliminary attachment issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in a case entitled Orlando Villa and Lourdes Villa v. Sta. Lucia Realty Development Corporation. The notice sought to garnish the monthly rentals paid by tenants of the mall.

SLECC immediately filed an affidavit of third-party claim under Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court. It pointed out that it was not a party to the Manila case and that it had a juridical personality separate from Sta. Lucia Realty Development Corporation. The sheriff, however, did not act on the claim.

SLECC then filed a petition for injunction in the RTC of Antipolo City to stop the sheriff from garnishing its tenants’ rentals. The sheriff failed to appear at the hearings despite notices. The Antipolo court issued a temporary restraining order, and later a writ of preliminary injunction, against the sheriff. Despite this, the sheriff still sent an order to SLECC’s tenants demanding delivery of their monthly rentals to him.

The Issue

The central question was whether Sheriff Lamano was administratively liable for his actions in enforcing the writ of attachment and for disregarding the injunction issued by the Antipolo City court.

The Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court found Sheriff Lamano guilty of simple misconduct, as well as inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his official duties. He was suspended for six months for each offense, with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.

The Court emphasized that sheriffs are primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all court processes and writs. They must at all times show the highest degree of professionalism and competence. Sheriffs cannot “venture into mere surmises and indiscriminately serve writs and attach properties without due circumspection.” They are mandated to use reasonable skill and diligence, especially where the rights and properties of individuals may be jeopardized by their neglect.

Key Principles Established

First, a sheriff must ascertain the correct party before serving a writ. In this case, the sheriff should have verified who the writ of preliminary attachment was intended for before serving the notice of garnishment on SLECC’s tenants. After being apprised of the erroneous service, he should have refrained from insisting on collecting the rentals.

Second, a sheriff cannot ignore court orders. The Court rejected the sheriff’s argument that he need not attend the injunction hearings because a court cannot enjoin the enforcement of a writ issued by a court of co-equal rank. Only a superior court can determine whether an order or process issued by an inferior court is illegal. A sheriff, who has no judicial power, cannot make that determination on his own. Even if the sheriff believed his position was correct, he should have filed a proper manifestation, motion, or pleading—not simply ignored the court.

Third, the duty under Rule 39, Section 16 is not merely to inform. The rule provides that when a third party claims the property levied upon and files an affidavit of title, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property unless the judgment obligee files an indemnity bond. The sheriff’s duty was not just to inform the plaintiffs of the third-party claim; it was also his duty not to keep the property if the plaintiffs failed to post the required bond. The sheriff admitted that the plaintiffs did not post the bond, yet he still ordered the delivery of the rentals.

Fourth, a sheriff cannot escape liability by blaming a collaborator. The sheriff argued that a collaborating sheriff actually served the notice. The Court found this unavailing because he still ordered the conveyance of the rentals despite knowledge of the erroneous service and the injunction.

Practical Takeaways

• Sheriffs must exercise due diligence. Before enforcing a writ, a sheriff must ascertain the correct party against whom it is directed. Serving a writ against a third party with a separate juridical personality is a serious error.
• Third-party claims must be handled properly. Under Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court, if a third party files an affidavit of claim, the sheriff must not keep the property unless the judgment obligee posts an indemnity bond.
• Court orders must be obeyed, even if they seem wrong. A sheriff cannot disregard a court order or skip hearings based on a personal legal opinion. The proper remedy is to file the appropriate pleading, not to defy the court.
• Administrative liability is real. Misconduct and inefficiency in the performance of official duties carry penalties of suspension. Sheriffs who fail to meet the standards of their office face serious consequences.

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