Acuña vs. Alcantara

A sheriff implementing a writ of attachment is bound to exercise ordinary and reasonable care for the preservation of the attached property, and failure to promptly secure a proper custodian after the initial refusal of an agency, coupled with entrusting the property to an interested party, constitutes simple negligence.

Complainant Evelyn Acuña filed an administrative complaint against Rodolfo A. Alcantara, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of Villasis, Pangasinan, Branch 50. The complaint stemmed from the sheriff's implementation of a writ of preliminary attachment issued in Civil Case No. V-0413, a case for recovery of sum of money filed by Gloria R. Ocampo against Acuña.

On December 23, 1997, the Regional Trial Court of Villasis, Pangasinan, Branch 50, granted a prayer for preliminary attachment in Civil Case No. V-0413, a recovery of sum of money case filed by Gloria R. Ocampo against Evelyn Acuña. The writ of attachment was issued over Acuña's two flatboats. Sheriff Rodolfo A. Alcantara was tasked with implementing the writ. Finding the flatboats unseaworthy, Alcantara initially sought the assistance of the Philippine Coast Guard in Sual, Pangasinan, for safekeeping. The Coast Guard, however, refused to accept custody without a court order.

Constrained by the Coast Guard's refusal, Alcantara docked the flatboats at the Sual port, tied them to a bamboo post, and entrusted them to the son of plaintiff Ocampo, although the keys were kept by the son. Sometime in May 1998, Alcantara was informed that one of the flatboats had sunk. Only then did he ask the trial court for an order to have the Philippine Coast Guard take possession of the flatboats. The court issued the order on June 5, 1998, which Alcantara implemented by hiring men at his own expense to lift the submerged flatboat and depositing both boats with the Coast Guard.

On September 18, 1998, the Coast Guard requested the transfer of the flatboats to a safer place to prevent further deterioration. Before Alcantara could act on the request, typhoons "Gading," "Iliang," and "Loleng" struck the area and totally destroyed the flatboats. Acuña charged Alcantara with negligence and manifest partiality for failing to take necessary precautions in protecting the attached property, citing his entrustment of the boats to Ocampo's relative and the subsequent total damage to the boats while in the Coast Guard's custody. Alcantara defended his actions by claiming he had taken all necessary measures to protect the property and only turned to Ocampo's son because the Coast Guard initially refused assistance.

• Negligence in Safekeeping: Complainant averred that respondent sheriff failed to take the necessary precautions in protecting the attached property by entrusting the flatboats to a relative of the plaintiff, under whose care one of the flatboats submerged.
• Loss of Property: Complainant argued that the flatboats were totally damaged due to the sheriff's decision to turn them over to the Philippine Coast Guard of Sual, Pangasinan, where they were exposed to several typhoons.

• Justification for Custody Arrangement: Respondent explained that the flatboats were not seaworthy and that he initially sought the Coast Guard's assistance, but they refused without a court order, constraining him to dock the boats and entrust them to the plaintiff's son.
• Subsequent Diligence: Respondent maintained that he took all necessary measures to protect the attached property, eventually securing a court order to transfer custody to the Coast Guard and hiring men at his own expense to lift the submerged boat.
• Force Majeure: Respondent implied that the total destruction of the boats was caused by typhoons beyond his control, as he was unable to act on the Coast Guard's request to transfer the boats to a safer place before the typhoons struck.

• Sheriff's Negligence: Whether respondent sheriff was negligent in the performance of his duties in implementing the writ of preliminary attachment and safekeeping the attached property.
• Liability for Total Loss: Whether respondent sheriff should be held liable for the total loss of the flatboats due to typhoons while in the custody of the Philippine Coast Guard.

• Sheriff's Negligence: Yes. The sheriff was guilty of simple negligence for delaying the request for a court order to transfer custody of the flatboats to the Coast Guard after the latter's initial refusal.
• Liability for Total Loss: No. While the sheriff was negligent in his initial actions, the eventual deterioration and loss of the boats were caused by typhoons beyond his control, mitigating his liability to simple negligence.

• Sheriff's Negligence: A sheriff implementing a writ of attachment is bound to exercise ordinary and reasonable care for the preservation of the properties. A valid levy requires the officer to take actual possession and assert dominion over the property. While an attaching officer may put someone in possession to guard the property, he cannot relieve himself from liability. When the Coast Guard refused to take custody without a court order, the sheriff should have forthwith asked the trial court for such an order or assigned a disinterested party to take care of the boats. By entrusting the boats to the plaintiff's son and delaying the request for a court order until after one boat had sunk, the sheriff failed to exercise the required diligence.
• Liability for Total Loss: Although the sheriff was initially negligent, he exerted efforts to protect the flatboats by eventually transferring custody to the Coast Guard. The total destruction of the boats was caused by typhoons "Gading," "Iliang," and "Loleng," which are calamities beyond his control. Thus, the loss cannot be entirely blamed on the sheriff, warranting a reduction of the fine recommended by the OCA from P5,000.00 to P3,000.00.

• Sheriff's Duty to Preserve Attached Property — Having taken possession of property under a writ of attachment, it is the sheriff's duty to protect the property from damages or loss, and the sheriff is bound to exercise ordinary and reasonable care for its preservation. In this case, the sheriff breached this duty by entrusting the attached flatboats to the plaintiff's relative and delaying the procurement of a court order for proper custody.
• Valid Levy or Attachment — To constitute a valid levy or attachment, the officer must take actual possession of the property attached as far as practicable, putting himself in a position to enforce dominion over it adverse to and exclusive of the debtor. While the officer may arrange for someone to guard the property, he remains liable to the interested parties.

• "Having taken possession of the property under the writ of attachment, it was respondent’s duty to protect the property from damages or loss. The respondent was bound to exercise ordinary and reasonable care for the preservation of the properties." — This passage defines the standard of care required of a sheriff when implementing a writ of attachment, serving as the basis for finding the respondent negligent.
• "The refusal of the Philippine Coast Guard to initially take custody of the flatboats should have prompted him to forthwith ask the trial court for an order to have the custody of the flatboats transferred to the Philippine Coast Guard. He delayed in seeking for such a court order." — This explains the specific act of omission that constituted simple negligence on the part of the sheriff.

• Tantingco vs. Aguilar, 81 SCRA 599 — Cited for the doctrine that a sheriff taking possession of property under a writ of attachment has a duty to protect it from damage or loss and exercise ordinary and reasonable care for its preservation.
• National Bureau of Investigation vs. Tuliao, 270 SCRA 351 — Cited for the rule on valid levy, requiring actual taking of possession and dominion over the attached property, and holding that the attaching officer cannot relieve himself of liability even if he arranges for someone else to guard the property.
• Walker vs. McMicking, 14 Phil. 688 — Cited within NBI vs. Tuliao for the principle that a verbal declaration of seizure is insufficient and actual possession is required for a valid attachment.

• Section 7, Rule 57 of the Revised Rules of Court — Pertains to the attachment and safekeeping of property. The sheriff's failure to properly implement the writ and safekeep the property violated this provision.

Melo, Panganiban, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.