SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. P-98-1264 July 28, 1999

BASILIO P. MAMANTEO, FLORENTINO B. TRINIDAD, BONIFACIO MANGANIP and EDGAR S.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

What should the sheriff do when he is informed by the defendant in a replevin that the property to be
seized is in custodia legis and in fact already forfeited in favor of the government by order of another
government agency?

This question assumes importance in light of the charges of grave misconduct filed by complainants
Basilio P. Mamanteo, Provincial Environment and Natural Resources (PENR) Officer; Florentino B.
Trinidad, Community Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) Officer; and Bonifacio Manganip
and Edgar S. Sallidao, both DENR forestry employees stationed in Tabuk, Kalinga, against Deputy
Sheriff Manuel M. Magumun of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 4, Tuguegarao, Cagayan.

On 12 April 1996 forestry employees of the DENR, Cordillera Administrative Region, Tabuk, Kalinga,
tasked with the enforcement of forestry laws, intercepted a San Miguel Corporation van with Plate
No. PJC-321 loaded with narra flitches wrapped in nylon sacks and covered with empty beer bottles
and cartons. Confronted by the forestry employees, Villamor Martinez, driver of the van, could not
produce any legal permit authorizing him to transport the narra lumber. Hence, after issuing seizure
receipts, the vehicle and its load of narra flitches were confiscated by the DENR forestry employees.

On 24 May 1996 a criminal complaint against driver Villamor Martinez was filed before the Provincial
Prosecutors Office of Tabuk, Kalinga, for violation of Sec. 78 of P.D. 705 as amended, and
2

implemented by DENR Administrative Order 59. On 24 July 1996, after due notice and opportunity
3

to be heard, an order of forfeiture of the vehicle and its load was issued by the DENR Regional
Office pursuant to its quasi-judicial authority to administratively order the confiscation and forfeiture
of lumber possessed without permit including its conveyance.

Thereafter, San Miguel Corporation, the owner of the vehicle, through its agent Aimardo V. Interior,
filed a case for recovery of personal property and damages with application for writ of replevin with
the Regional Trial Court, Br. 4, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, against herein complainants. The trial court
issued a warrant of seizure of personal property directing its sheriff to take hold of the van and its
contents.

On 1 August 1996 Deputy Sheriff Manuel M. Magumun, escorted by Sheriff Jacinto Contapay of
RTC-Br. 1, Tabuk, Kalinga, and agents of the Philippine National Police, went to the office of the
DENR in Tabuk, Kalinga, to enforce the warrant issued by the trial court but the forestry employees
and officials refused to release the van on the ground that it had already been forfeited in favor of the
government and was now in custodia legis. Despite this explanation, on 7 August 1996, Deputy
Sheriff Magumun accompanied this time by Sheriff John Dongui-is Jr. of the Office of the Clerk of
Court of Tabuk, Kalinga, and twenty (20) other persons, took the van without permission of the
employees and officials of the DENR. On 13 August 1996, after the lapse of the five-day period
prescribed by law for filing an opposition to the writ, the vehicle was delivered to Aimardo V. Interior,
agent of SMC.

In his comment, Deputy Sheriff Magumun explained that it was his ministerial duty to execute the
warrant in accordance with its mandate and his duties as sheriff under the Rules of Court and the
Manual for Clerks of Court. He conceded that he was informed by the forestry employees and
4

officials of the forfeiture of the vehicle subject of the warrant of seizure but he reasoned that it was
not within his discretion to withhold the implementation of the warrant. The execution of a warrant of
5

seizure on a vehicle allegedly forfeited in favor of the government was a question of law too
technical for him to resolve and faced with such a dilemma he opted to follow the order of the court
6

and execute the warrant in accordance with its mandate.

On 20 October 1997 the complaint was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for
evaluation, report and recommendation. The OCA observed that Deputy Sheriff Magumun made a
very literal interpretation of Sec. 4, Rule 60, of the Rules of Court as amended. The OCA noted that
7

while Rule 60 was silent on what should be done when the sheriff is informed by the defendant in the
replevin that the personal property to be seized has been forfeited in favor of the government and is
already in custodia legis, Deputy Sheriff Magumun should not have insisted on seizing the property
subject of the warrant of seizure. The appropriate action should have been for respondent to inform
8

his judge of the situation by way of partial Sheriff's Return and wait for instructions on the proper
procedure to be observed. For such ignorance of proper procedure the OCA recommended that
9

Sheriff Magumun be penalized in the amount of P5,000.00 at the very least. 10

We agree. Respondent was placed in a difficult situation where the vehicle subject of the warrant of
seizure had already been confiscated by another government agency and forfeited in favor of the
government. However, the novelty of his predicament did not call for him to use his discretion and
justify his insistence on taking the property subject of the warrant without waiting for instructions from
his judge. A sheriff's prerogative does not give him the liberty to determine who among the parties is
entitled to the possession of the attached property, much less does he have any discretion to
11

decide which agency has primary jurisdiction and authority over the matter at hand.

When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the
contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its
mandate. However, the prompt implementation of a warrant of seizure is called for only in
12

instances where there is no question regarding the right of the plaintiff to the property. Where the
plaintiff has shown by his own affidavit that he is entitled to the possession of the property; that the
property is wrongfully detained by the defendant; that the same has not been taken for tax
assessment or seized under execution or attachment, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such
seizure, then the executing officer has no other recourse but to execute the warrant or writ
13

expeditiously.

In the instant case, Deputy Sheriff Magumun has been informed that the property had been
impounded due to violation of forestry laws and an order for its forfeiture had already been issued by
the DENR. Moreover, he was advised that the proper remedy for SMC, owner of the vehicle, was to
appeal the order of forfeiture to the Secretary of the DENR. The prudent recourse then for
14

respondent was to desist from executing the warrant and convey the information to his judge and to
the plaintiff. Instead, Deputy Sheriff Magumun carried out the implementation of the warrant of
seizure with undue haste as evidenced by the mere 6-day lapse from the time he first served the
warrant of seizure on the DENR officials to the time of his precipitate seizure of the van. A warrant
could be returned within a period of not less than ten (10) days nor more than sixty (60) days after its
receipt by the executing officer. Within this time frame, Deputy Sheriff Magumun should have
15

conferred with his judge and thereafter execute the warrant judiciously and with more certainty.

True, sheriffs must comply with their mandated ministerial duty to implement writs promptly and
expeditiously, but equally true is the principle that sheriffs by the nature of their functions must at all
times conduct themselves with propriety and decorum and act above suspicion. There must be no
16

room for anyone to conjecture that sheriffs and deputy sheriffs as officers of the court have
conspired with any of the parties to a case to obtain a favorable judgment or immediate execution.
The sheriff is the front line representative of the judiciary and by his act he may build or destroy the
institution.

As observed by the OCA, the writ of replevin has been repeatedly used by unscrupulous plaintiffs to
retrieve their chattel earlier taken for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code, tax assessment,
17

attachment or execution. Officers of the court, from the presiding judge to the sheriff, are implored to
be vigilant in their execution of the law otherwise, as in this case, valid seizure and forfeiture
proceedings could easily be undermined by the simple devise of a writ of replevin. Hence, sheriffs
and deputy sheriffs, as agents of the law, are called upon to discharge their duties with due care and
utmost diligence because in serving the court's writs and processes and implementing the orders of
the court, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their office and the efficient
administration of justice.18

WHEREFORE, respondent Deputy Sheriff Manuel M. Magumun is found guilty of grave misconduct
and, as recommended, is fined P5,000.00 for arbitrarily implementing the warrant of seizure of
personal property and for ignorance of the proper procedure in serving writs of replevin in cases
where the personal property to be recovered has already been seized and forfeited in favor of the
government for violation of forestry laws. Respondent is warned that a repetition of the same or
similar act will merit a more severe sanction.

SO ORDERED.