A.M. No. P-14-3246 - Quicho vs. Reyes, Jr.

Atty. Rico Paolo R. Quicho, representing the Bank of Commerce (BOC), filed a complaint against Bienvenido S. Reyes, Jr., Sheriff IV, Branch 98, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City.
The complaint was anchored on Reyes’ alleged abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law in connection with the alias writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. Q-89-3580 (aRadio Philippines Network, Inc. v. Traders Royal Bank).

The alias writ of execution was issued on March 9, 2010, by the RTC in Civil Case No. Q-89-3580, with its validity pending in the Court of Appeals.
Reyes implemented the writ on December 9, 2010, at BOC’s main office and again on December 17, 2010, at a branch in Lipa City, Batangas.
In executing the writ, Reyes allegedly deviated from the proper procedure as prescribed by the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, which requires that if the judgment obligor is unable to pay immediately, they must be given the option to select properties for levy.

Reyes was accused of exceeding his authority by ignoring BOC’s option to satisfy the judgment through the levy of a real property offered from Barangay Manggahan, Paranaque City.
Instead of accepting the offered property, Reyes allegedly used excessive force:

He used an acetylene torch to breach the locked grill door of BOC’s cash vault in Lipa City.
He forcibly removed cash deposits and computers from the bank, actions that were claimed to have disrupted the bank’s operations.

Further, Reyes was said to have employed agents from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and members of the Philippine National Police (PNP), whose presence in full battle gear and high-powered firearms allegedly sowed terror among bank employees and clients.

He acted within his authority because the offer by BOC was a property not recognized under the usual modes of payment required by law (cash, certified bank check, or other acceptable forms).
The delayed exercise of the option by BOC (eight months after the demand) effectively waived their right to choose which property to levy.

Reyes maintained that his deployment of force, including resorting to an acetylene torch, was due to the necessity of accessing the vault when cash was locked inside.
He also pointed out that he had notified several banks for garnishment before ultimately resorting to the levy on personal and other properties, arguing that he was fulfilling his ministerial duty under the Rules of Court.

On August 29, 2013, the OCA submitted a report concluding that Reyes acted beyond his legal authority.
The Report highlighted that Reyes should have referred the issue of the acceptability of BOC’s offered property to the issuing court rather than unilaterally deciding to reject it.
The OCA cited prior jurisprudence (e.g., Stilgrove v. Sabas) to emphasize that a sheriff’s duty is ministerial and that any ambiguity in the writ should be clarified with the court.
The OCA recommended that Reyes be found administratively liable for grave abuse of authority, and imposed a fine of P5,000, with a warning regarding future similar conduct.

Whether Sheriff Reyes exceeded his ministerial duty by unilaterally rejecting BOC’s offer of a real property and instead enforcing the levy on cash and personal properties.

Did Reyes act within his legal scope by promptly implementing the alias writ of execution without seeking judicial clarification on the acceptability of the real property offered by BOC?
Was his decision to use forced entry (e.g., employing an acetylene torch on the bank’s vault) justified under the circumstances?

Whether Reyes’ use of force and the involvement of NBI agents and PNP personnel in full battle gear constituted an abuse of authority that intimidated bank employees and clients.

Whether the delay by BOC in offering satisfactory modes of payment (thus exercising its option to choose properties for levy) absolved Reyes from the duty to seek clarification from the court before proceeding.

Whether the actions of Reyes, particularly levying on essential banking properties (computers and cash), were in clear violation of the prescribed procedures under Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.