Lawyer Sanctioned for Misusing Court Custody of Levied Property

The Supreme Court has reminded all lawyers—especially those in government service—that personal convenience never justifies tampering with property placed under the custody of the court. In a 2022 decision, the Court suspended a Court Attorney for one year and fined him P90,000 for repeatedly taking a levied vehicle in and out of court premises without judicial approval, a clear breach of legal process and professional ethics.

The Case: Taking What Was Not Yet His

The respondent, Atty. Albert N. Lavandero, was a Court Attorney IV at the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). He was also a co-plaintiff in a case involving a violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (bouncing checks) pending before a Metropolitan Trial Court in Marikina City.

After a ruling favorable to him, several properties of the losing party—including a Black Hyundai Accent—were placed under custodia legis (custody of the law) for levy, execution, and auction sale. The presiding judge later discovered, through CCTV footage, that Lavandero had taken the vehicle in and out of court premises on three occasions without her knowledge or approval, and without any public auction having been held.

The Defense: A Claimed Auction

Lavandero insisted he had authority to take the vehicle, claiming it had been sold to him as the highest bidder in a public auction on August 19, 2016. He argued that any irregularities should be blamed on the sheriff, not on him.

The Court did not accept this. The Notice of Levy and Sale for that date did not include the vehicle among the properties to be auctioned. There was no documentary evidence that the vehicle was ever validly sold. The Court found that Lavandero, in connivance with the sheriff, skirted proper procedures for properties under court custody.

The Ruling: Two Administrative Cases, Two Penalties

Because Lavandero was both a court employee and a lawyer, the case proceeded on two fronts.

As a court employee. The Court found him guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Notably, his resignation in 2019 did not stop the case; once jurisdiction over an administrative case attaches, resignation does not render it moot. The Court imposed a fine of P90,000, applying the amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court because it was less prejudicial to him than the older civil service rules.

As a member of the Bar. The Court found he violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR):

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1 – engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct;
• Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10 – committing falsehood and misleading the Court; and
• Rule 12.04, Canon 12 – misusing court processes.

He was suspended from the practice of law for one year, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

Why This Matters for Lawyers

The decision underscores that lawyers in government service are not insulated from professional discipline. Canon 6 of the CPR expressly applies the Canons to lawyers in government service. As officers of the court, lawyers are expected to uphold the law and respect legal processes—not exploit them for personal gain.

Practical Takeaways

• Never touch property under custodia legis without court authority. Even a winning litigant cannot simply take levied property before a valid auction and court approval.
• Government lawyers are fully subject to the CPR. Misconduct in an official or personal capacity can result in suspension from the practice of law.
• Resignation does not erase liability. Administrative cases filed during one's incumbency continue even after resignation or retirement.
• Blame-shifting is not a defense. A lawyer cannot pin irregularities on a sheriff or other court personnel when the lawyer personally participated in the misconduct.
• Expect serious penalties. Taking property under court custody without approval has previously drawn a one-year suspension, and the Court will not hesitate to impose the same.

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