A.M. No. P-91-549 - Sebastian vs. Valino

Marblecraft, Inc., represented by its Assistant General Manager, Reynaldo Sebastian, is the complainant.
Alberto A. Valino, the Senior Deputy Sheriff of the Office of the Regional Sheriff, Pasig, Metro Manila, is the respondent.
The dispute arises from the implementation of a writ of seizure and subsequent orders for the return of chattels related to a replevin suit.

On March 3, 1989, the Private Development Corporation of the Philippines (PDCP) filed a replevin suit against Marblecraft, Inc. in Civil Case No. 89-3368 to foreclose on chattels mortgaged by Marblecraft.
On March 30, 1989, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Makati issued a writ of seizure directed against Marblecraft, covering the chattels subject to the replevin suit.
The execution of the writ of seizure was delayed by a writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC, Pasig, in Civil Case No. 58006, which enjoined PDCP from proceeding with the foreclosure sale.
The injunction was dissolved on October 31, 1990, thereby allowing enforcement-related processes to proceed.

On November 9, 1990, at approximately 10:37 A.M., respondent, accompanied by several policemen and PDCP employees, arrived at Marblecraft’s office in Barrio Santolan, Pasig.
Respondent and his companions forcibly opened lockers and desk drawers, seizing personal belongings and office equipment belonging to Marblecraft’s employees.
Two criminal complaints for robbery were subsequently filed against respondent and his companions by the employees.

The respondent only provided a copy of the writ of seizure to Marblecraft’s counsel and failed to furnish the accompanying application, supporting affidavit, and bond as required.
The enforcement process lasted four days, during which several pieces of machinery and equipment were either destroyed or removed by the respondent.
Instead of safeguarding the seized items, the respondent turned them over to PDCP’s counsel, who then stored the items in PDCP’s warehouse in Taguig.

On November 14, 1990, complainant posted a counterbond, prompting the RTC, Makati, to approve it and issue an order for the immediate return of the seized items.
The RTC reaffirmed its directive in an order dated November 26, 1990, and later in an order dated December 11, 1990, which warned that failure to comply would result in the appointment of another sheriff to enforce the return order.
Despite these clear orders, the respondent did not execute them as mandated. His so-called action on December 12, 1990—sending a letter to PDCP’s counsel—resulted in no tangible compliance as PDCP’s counsel refused to authorize the return of the articles.

The respondent claimed that the administrative complaint against him was an act of harassment by Marblecraft since he had refused to delay the implementation of the writ of seizure.
He argued that non-implementation of the writ would have led to allegations of non-performance of his official duties, notwithstanding the fact that criminal complaints against him for theft had already been dismissed.
The investigating judge found respondent guilty of partiality for immediately turning over the seized items to PDCP and of willfully refusing to enforce the court’s orders for the return of those items.
The respondent’s failure to comply was compounded by his contravention of Section 4, Rule 60 of the Revised Rules of Court, which requires the sheriff to retain seized property in custody for five days and to furnish both the application and supporting documents to the defendant.

Whether the respondent violated Section 4, Rule 60 of the Revised Rules of Court by failing to retain the seized items for the prescribed period and by not furnishing the defendant with the application, supporting affidavit, and bond.

Whether the respondent’s conduct in immediately turning over the seized items to PDCP and his subsequent inaction in enforcing the court’s orders constituted gross abuse of authority and displayed partiality.

Whether the respondent’s failure to implement the orders of the RTC (dated November 14, November 26, and December 11, 1990) to return the seized articles to Marblecraft, Inc. amounted to willful disobedience and misconduct.
Whether or not the respondent’s actions could be excused by his claim regarding the unavailability of proper storage facilities for the seized items.

Whether disobedience by a court employee, as exhibited by the respondent, undermines public confidence in the judicial process and merits the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.