Olandria vs. Fuentes, Jr.

A sheriff who fails to submit an inventory of attached properties as required by Section 6, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court and as directed by specific court orders commits simple neglect of duty, notwithstanding any claim that the properties had already been withdrawn by the plaintiff pursuant to a compromise agreement, because the determination of the propriety of such withdrawals lies exclusively with the court, not with the enforcing officer.

Venerando C. Olandria was a defendant in a civil case for sum of money with prayer for preliminary attachment filed by Pump & Go Power Fuel, Inc. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 7, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-38633. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment which Sheriff IV Eugenio E. Fuentes, Jr. was assigned to enforce. Respondent attached seven gasoline stations owned by complainant, whereupon the plaintiff posted private security guards at each location. Complainant alleged that the plaintiff eventually gained full control of the stations and withdrew various items therefrom without respondent's supervision or inventory.

• The Attachment: In Civil Case No. CEB-38633 (Pump & Go Power Fuel, Inc. v. Venlei Assets Corp. and Venerando Cimagala Olandria), the RTC of Cebu City issued a writ of preliminary attachment. Respondent Sheriff IV Eugenio E. Fuentes, Jr. enforced the writ by attaching complainant's seven gasoline stations. Plaintiff Pump & Go Power Fuel, Inc. posted private security guards at each attached station.
• Alleged Loss of Control: Complainant alleged that plaintiff gained control of the attached gas stations, entering and leaving at will, and withdrew various items therefrom on several occasions without respondent's knowledge or supervision.
• Court Orders for Inventory: By Order dated April 3, 2014, the RTC directed respondent to confirm allegations regarding the withdrawal of fuel and to make an inventory of the attached properties. By Order dated October 10, 2014, the RTC specifically directed respondent "to make an inventory of the items removed from [complainant's] warehouse and junkyard and to make an inquiry as to where the items [were] stored within 10 days."
• Respondent's Manifestation: In his Manifestation dated October 28, 2014, respondent admitted his inability to comply with the inventory order, stating that the attached properties had already been withdrawn by the plaintiff in his absence, based on information provided by the plaintiff's representative. He claimed that the withdrawals occurred pursuant to the RTC's Decision dated January 28, 2014 which approved a compromise agreement between the parties, giving plaintiff 30 days to withdraw equipment.
• Procedural Posture: Complainant filed a motion to appoint another sheriff and a motion to require respondent to make an inventory. The RTC denied the motion to appoint another sheriff but granted the motion to inventory, issuing the orders mentioned above.

• Grave Misconduct and Dereliction of Duty: Complainant maintained that respondent's failure to retain custody and control of the attached properties, allowing plaintiff to withdraw items without his presence or inventory, constituted grave misconduct and gross dereliction of duty. As an officer of the court, respondent should have protected the interests of both parties equally by maintaining custody of the attached properties subject to court supervision.
• Inadequate Justification: Complainant argued that respondent's reliance on the compromise agreement did not excuse his failure to supervise the withdrawals or to comply with the subsequent court orders requiring an inventory.

• Maintained Custody: Respondent countered that he did not lose control over the attached properties because the security guards posted at the gasoline stations effectively protected and guarded them. He asserted that posting security guards was standard operating practice for attached properties like gasoline stations where bonded warehouses were unavailable and physical transfer of tanks was impractical.
• Fait Accompli: Respondent argued that when ordered by the RTC on April 3, 2014 to oversee withdrawals, the items had already been withdrawn by the plaintiff pursuant to the compromise agreement dated January 28, 2014, rendering the order moot. He maintained that he could not make a true and accurate inventory because the items were no longer in the attached premises.
• Lack of Damage: Respondent suggested that complainant suffered no injury or damage from the alleged activities of the plaintiff, and that the RTC did not issue subsequent orders requiring the inventory after his manifestation explaining his inability to comply.

• Nature of Offense: Whether respondent is guilty of grave misconduct, gross dereliction of duty, and gross ignorance of the law as charged, or merely simple neglect of duty.
• Propriety of Penalty: Whether the penalty of a ₱5,000.00 fine recommended by the OCA is appropriate, or whether the minimum penalty for simple neglect of duty (suspension for one month and one day) should be imposed, either as suspension or as a fine in lieu thereof.

• Simple Neglect of Duty: Respondent is guilty merely of simple neglect of duty, not grave misconduct or gross dereliction. Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference. Respondent's admitted failure to submit the inventory ordered by the RTC—justified only by his claim that the properties had already been withdrawn—constituted inadvertence and lack of attention rather than deliberate wrongdoing. The Court rejected respondent's justification that the compromise agreement authorized the withdrawals, holding that it is for the judge, not the sheriff, to determine the propriety of such actions. Respondent had no discretion to declare the court's order moot or to decide whether to comply based on his own assessment of the situation.
• Penalty of Fine in Lieu of Suspension: The penalty of suspension for one month and one day (the minimum for simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense under Section 50(D)(1), Rule 10 of the RRACCS) is converted to a fine equivalent to one month and one day's salary. Section 52(b), Rule 10 of the RRACCS allows payment of fine in place of suspension when the respondent is actually discharging frontline functions or those directly dealing with the public and the human resource complement of the office is insufficient. Respondent, as Sheriff IV, performs frontline functions, and his suspension would unduly prejudice public service. Moreover, the presence of the mitigating circumstance of first offense (Section 53(k), Rule 10 RRACCS) warrants the imposition of the minimum penalty.

• Simple Neglect of Duty — Defined as the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference. Distinguished from grave misconduct or gross dereliction of duty by the absence of deliberate intent or corruption.
• Sheriff's Duty to Inventory — Under Section 6, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, a sheriff enforcing a writ of preliminary attachment must submit a complete inventory of the property attached together with the return. This duty persists notwithstanding claims that attached properties have been withdrawn by parties; the sheriff cannot unilaterally determine that a court order has become moot.
• Substitution of Fine for Suspension — Under Section 52(b), Rule 10 of the 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), a disciplining authority may allow payment of fine in place of suspension when the respondent is actually discharging frontline functions or those directly dealing with the public and the human resource complement of the office is insufficient to perform such function. The fine shall be computed based on the respondent's salary at the time the decision becomes final and executory pursuant to Section 56(d), Rule 10 of the RRACCS.

• "Simple Neglect of Duty is defined as the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference."
• "Respondent should have submitted the inventory of the attached properties as directed by the trial court; in addition, he should have made updates on the attached properties in his custody while these were awaiting judgment and execution."
• "Respondent cannot validly argue that the withdrawals made by the plaintiff were proper and in accordance with the compromise agreement entered by the parties; it is for the judge to determine the propriety of the withdrawals."
• "Respondent had no authority or discretion to decide whether to comply or not, or to declare whether the order had already become moot."

• Sabijon v. De Juan, 752 Phil. 110 (2015) — Cited as controlling precedent defining simple neglect of duty in the context of a sheriff's failure to make periodic reports and returns on writs of execution. The Court adopted the definition and applied it to the instant case where the sheriff failed to inventory attached properties.
• Mariñas v. Florendo, 598 Phil. 322 (2009) — Cited for the principle that suspension would not be practical when respondent's work would be left unattended, justifying the imposition of a fine in lieu of suspension.
• Atty. Cabigao v. Nery, 719 Phil. 475 (2013) — Cited for the rule that where a respondent is actually discharging frontline functions as sheriff, the penalty of fine may be imposed in lieu of suspension from office.
• Daplas v. Department of Finance, G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017 — Cited for the computation of fine equivalent to the period of suspension based on salary at the time the decision becomes final and executory.

• Section 6, Rule 57, Rules of Court — Mandates that after enforcing a writ of preliminary attachment, the sheriff must make a return to the court with a full statement of proceedings and a complete inventory of the property attached, together with any counter-bond, and serve copies on the applicant. The Court held that respondent violated this provision by failing to submit the required inventory despite court orders.
• Section 50(D)(1), Rule 10, 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) — Classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second.
• Section 52(b), Rule 10, RRACCS — Allows the disciplining authority to permit payment of fine in place of suspension when the respondent is discharging frontline functions or dealing directly with the public and the office lacks sufficient personnel to cover such functions during suspension.
• Section 53(k), Rule 10, RRACCS — Lists "first offense" as a mitigating circumstance in administrative disciplinary proceedings.
• Section 54, Rule 10, RRACCS — Provides that the minimum of the penalty shall be imposed where only mitigating and no aggravating circumstances are present.
• Section 56(d), Rule 10, RRACCS — Governs the computation of fines equivalent to suspension periods based on the respondent's salary at the time the decision becomes final and executory.

Jardeleza, Tijam, and Gesmundo, JJ., concurred.