A.M. No. P-18-3848 - Olandria vs. Fuentes, Jr.

The administrative case arose from a Complaint-Affidavit filed by Venerando C. Olandria against Eugenio E. Fuentes, Jr., Sheriff IV of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City.
The complaint charged respondent with grave misconduct, gross dereliction of duty, and gross ignorance of the law in relation to his enforcement of a writ of attachment in Civil Case No. CEB-38633 involving Pump & Go Power Fuel, Inc. versus Venlei Assets Corp. and Venerando Cimagala Olandria (doing business as Unified Petroleum Philippines).

Complainant asserted that he was among the defendants in a civil case seeking a sum of money and the issuance of a writ of attachment.
The RTC of Cebu City issued a writ of preliminary attachment in the said civil case.
Respondent was assigned to enforce the writ and, as a result, attached and took possession of complainant’s seven gasoline stations.
After the attachment, the plaintiff posted private security guards at the stations, eventually gaining control of the properties and executing several withdrawals from them.

The complainant filed a motion with the RTC to have another sheriff appointed, arguing that his interests were unprotected by respondent’s actions; this motion was denied.
A subsequent motion was filed with the RTC requiring respondent to make an inventory of the attached properties.
On April 3, 2014, the RTC ordered respondent to inventory the attached properties and indicate where they were to be stored.

In a Manifestation dated October 28, 2014, respondent claimed that the attached properties had already been withdrawn by the plaintiff in his absence, citing information from the plaintiff’s representative.
He argued that posting security guards was the standard operating practice for attached properties such as gasoline stations, due to the impracticality of transferring such items to bonded warehouses.
Respondent contended that it was beyond his physical capability to guard all attached properties personally.
He minimized the allegation regarding the plaintiff’s employees entering and leaving the premises, noting that no injury or damage had been shown.
Additionally, respondent noted that the RTC’s Decision on a Compromise Agreement dated January 28, 2014, had effectively authorized the withdrawal of certain items, thus reducing his responsibility for a detailed inventory post-withdrawal.

In its 1st Indorsement dated October 6, 2015, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent to comment on the charges, to which he submitted his defense as outlined above.
The OCA, in its Memorandum Report of June 7, 2017, recommended that respondent be found guilty of simple neglect of duty.
The OCA found that respondent failed to make an inventory of the attached properties despite the RTC’s directive, which would have protected complainant’s interests by detailing the nature, quantity, and storage location of the properties.
It was emphasized that—even if the plaintiff had been authorized to withdraw items—the responsibility to supervise and secure the removal lay with the sheriff.

The requirements for inventory and periodic reporting by sheriffs are set forth under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, particularly Section 6, which mandates that after enforcing a writ, a sheriff must promptly return to court a full statement of his proceedings and a complete inventory of the attached property.
Respondent admitted his failure to submit the required inventory and periodic reports, leaving the withdrawal of property inadequately documented.

Whether the acts (or omissions) of the respondent, particularly his failure to make an inventory and secure the attached properties, constitute grave misconduct or can be classified as simple neglect of duty.

The distinction between grave misconduct and simple neglect of duty is central to determining the appropriate penalty.
The issue involves whether respondent’s reliance on standard operating procedures and the plaintiff’s authorized withdrawals under the compromise agreement can exonerate him from the statutory and procedural obligations.

Whether respondent’s arguments, including the claim that physical guarding was adequately provided by posted security personnel, sufficiently excused his failure to comply with the RTC’s directive to create an inventory.

The argument questioned if the standard practice of employing security guards in gasoline stations absolved the sheriff of personally ensuring proper documentation of withdrawals.
Whether the fact that a compromise agreement existed and permitted withdrawals within a set period should have negated or modified his duty to secure a subsequent inventory.

The appropriate disciplinary measure to impose on respondent in light of his administrative infraction given that he is a frontline functionary whose absence might adversely affect the operations of his office.

The issue also pertains to whether a penalty in the form of suspension or a fine is more suitable considering the need to ensure uninterrupted service in the office.