Facts:

In a verified letter-complaint dated October 27, 1998, Evelyn AcuAa filed a complaint against Rodolfo A. Alcantara, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 50, in Villasis, Pangasinan. The complaint arose from Civil Case No. V-0413, titled "Mrs. Gloria R. Ocampo vs. Mrs. Evelyn AcuAa," which involved a recovery of a sum of money with a prayer for preliminary attachment. On December 23, 1997, the trial court granted the preliminary attachment requested by the plaintiff, Ocampo, leading to the issuance of a writ that affected two flatboats owned by AcuAa. AcuAa alleged that Alcantara, in executing the writ, failed to take necessary precautions to protect the attached property. Specifically, Alcantara entrusted the flatboats to a relative of Ocampo, resulting in one of the flatboats submerging. Subsequently, the flatboats were turned over to the Philippine Coast Guard in Sual, Pangasinan, where they were ultimately damaged due to several typhoons. Alcantara expl...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Complainant Evelyn AcuAa filed a verified letter-complaint on 27 October 1998 against Rodolfo A. Alcantara, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of Villasis, Pangasinan, Branch 50.
• The complaint charged the respondent with negligence and manifest partiality in the execution of his duties under Civil Case No. V-0413, specifically in relation to the implementation of a writ of preliminary attachment in a dispute between Mrs. Gloria R. Ocampo and Mrs. Evelyn AcuAa.

Execution of the Writ of Attachment

• The trial court, on 23 December 1997, granted the preliminary attachment petition filed by plaintiff Ocampo.
• The writ was issued on two flatboats belonging to the complainant AcuAa.
• During implementation, the respondent entrusted the flatboats to a relative of plaintiff Ocampo without taking adequate precautions for their safekeeping.

Subsequent Handling and Deterioration of the Flatboats

• One of the flatboats submerged while under the care of the relative of the plaintiff.
• The remaining flatboats were later turned over to the Philippine Coast Guard of Sual, Pangasinan, where they were subjected to the effects of several typhoons which eventually caused total damage.

Respondent’s Defense and Actions Taken

• The respondent asserted that the flatboats were not seaworthy at the time of implementing the writ.
• He initially sought the assistance of the Philippine Coast Guard for safekeeping, but they refused to accept custody without a proper court order.
• Consequently, he docked the flatboats at Sual port, secured them by tying to a bamboo post, and entrusted them to a son of plaintiff Ocampo while keeping the keys centrally.
• After being informed in May 1998 that one of the flatboats had sunk, the respondent sought and obtained a court order directing the Philippine Coast Guard to take possession of the boats.
• On 05 June 1998, he implemented the court’s order by hiring men to lift the submerged flatboat and deposited both boats with the Coast Guard.
• On 18 September 1998, the Coast Guard requested the transfer of the flatboats to a safer location. However, before any such action could be taken, typhoons “Gading,” “Illiang,” and “Loleng” struck the area, leading to the complete destruction of the flatboats.

Findings by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)

• The OCA evaluated the handling of the attachment and opined that the complaint was partly meritorious based on established jurisprudence requiring actual possession and proper safekeeping of attached property.
• Citing cases such as Tantingco vs. Aguilar and National Bureau of Investigation vs. Tuliao, the OCA underscored that the officer in charge must exercise ordinary and reasonable care to protect the property.
• The OCA recommended that the respondent be fined ₱5,000.00 for his negligence.

Issue:

Whether the respondent, in executing the writ of preliminary attachment, exercised sufficient care and due diligence in safeguarding the property attached (i.e., the flatboats) from damage or loss.

• Did his decision to entrust the flatboats to a relative of the plaintiff and later delay in seeking a proper court order contribute materially to the subsequent deterioration and loss of the property?
• To what extent can external factors (i.e., typhoons and calamities) mitigate or share the respondent’s liability for the loss?

• Whether the respondent’s actions, particularly his failure to immediately secure the custody of the flatboats by obtaining the necessary court order, constitute negligence amounting to manifest partiality and disregard for proper execution of judicial duties.

• The appropriateness of imposing a fine, and if so, the quantum of the fine given the interplay of the respondent’s negligence and the intervening natural calamities.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)