The present administrative proceedings stem from the implementation of a writ of execution pending appeal issued in favor of Falcon Garments Corporation ("Falcon") against the Philippine Bank of Communications ("PBCom"). In Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Court of Appeals,^[1] where this Court held that there were no good reasons for the issuance of said writ of execution, PBCom alleged that Falcon employed irregular means in the enforcement of the writ. We noted therein that:

Falcon has ignored and has remained silent in regard to PBCom's charge of harassment and irregular resort to armed policemen and civilians with acetylene torches in the enforcement of the writ of execution pending appeal, thus lending credence to PBCom's complaint. However, it also appears that petitioner PBCom does not intend to pursue the administrative aspect of these alleged irregularities, its prayer in the petition being completely silent on these points. Nevertheless, we find it necessary to exhort both private respondent and its counsel, as well as public respondent sheriffs not to resort to such forms of harassment by using the strong arms of the law to the prejudice of any party. Barbaric acts such as those complained of have no place in a civilized society. It is even more abhorrent when such acts are with the participation or at the very least the acceptance of a member of the bar who, under his oath, has sworn to uphold the rule of law.

PBCom has apparently opted to pursue the administrative aspect of the allegedly irregular enforcement of the writ by filing a complaint against the implementing Sheriff, Efren V. Cachero, of Branch 101 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

The Office of the Court Administrator ("OCA") provides the following summary which, we find, faithfully adheres to the evidence presented by the parties:

Sometime in 1989, Falcon Garments Corporation (FALCON) opened a current account with the Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom), BMA Quezon City Branch, FALCON obtained a loan from PBCom, but because it failed to pay its loan obligation, PBCom withdrew certain amounts from FALCON's current account as payment for the latter's outstanding balance under the loan contract. FALCON in turn filed suit at the RTC - Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-95-22625 for the restoration by PBCom to its current account the unauthorized withdrawals totaling P12,729,092.78 made during the period 1990 to 1992, plus interests, damages and attorney's fees.

PBCom denied liability and interposed a compulsory counterclaim equivalent to FALCON's loan of P4,700,000.00 plus interests, penalty damages and attorney's fees. The case was raffled to RTC-Quezon City, Branch 78, which rendered a decision on 2 January 1996 ordering PBCom to restore immediately to FALCON's current account the sum of P12,729,092.78 plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum to commence from the date of the filing of the complaint until the said amount was fully restored and to pay P500,000.00 as exemplary damages, P500,000.00 as attorney's fees and P200,000.00 as litigation expenses. FALCON was likewise ordered to pay PBCom its loan plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum to commence from the date of the filing of the complaint.

PBCom appealed the decision while FALCON filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal dated 7 February 1996. Due to the inhibition of the presiding judge of Branch 78, the case was reraffled to Branch 101 presided over by Judge Pedro T. Santiago. FALCON also filed on 7 May 1996 an Ex-parte Manifestation and Motion asking for a direct payment to it of the money judgment, instead of the restoration of the amount to its account, due to its already strained relations with PBCom. Judge Santiago granted the same and authorized the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal. The writ was issued on 14 May 1996 and was served on 16 May 1996 to PBCom which sought the issuance by the Court of Appeals of a Temporary Restraining Order.

Service of the writ of execution pending appeal to the PBCom Buendia branch on 16 May 1996 was made by Efren V. Cachero, Branch Sheriff, RTC, Branch 101, Quezon City. The matter is now the subject of this administrative complaint lodged before this office by Atty Daniel V. Laogan of PBCom, charging Cachero with:

1. grave abuse of authority amounting to gross misconduct in office;
   
   
2. ignorance of the law and/or disobedience to the lawful order of the Court of Appeals;
   
   
3. highhandedness and arrogance; commission of acts unbecoming an officer of the court;
   
   
4. undue haste and oppressive manner; and
   
   
5. malicious desire to embarrass and ridicule PBCom and its personnel in the implementation of the writ.

Atty. Loagan supported his allegations with the Joint Affidavit dated 20 May 1996 executed by PBCom Branch Manager Elizabeth Mercado, Cashier Alison Sy, together with nine (9) of its employees, alleging among others that they witnessed the harassment and rudeness of Cachero in implementing subject writ, described and recounted as follows:

"On 16 May 1996 at around 2:30 p.m., Cachero together with at least 10 armed men in police uniform, officers of FALCON, members of the press (ABS-CBN) and other goons, in blatant disregard of rules and procedures, forcibly entered the bank by declaring that they were serving a writ of execution and threatening the bank guards that they will break the glass door should they be refused entry. Once inside the bank premises, Cachero shouted and declared `Ako ang masusunod sa oras na ito, amin na iyang lahat ng pera na yan, kasi natalo kayo sa kaso.' Cachero served the writ to Ms. Mercado and proceeded to block the vault door by placing a chair in front of it. He then ordered the ABS-CBN crew to take footages of the implementation over the objection of Ms. Mercado. He also shouted and ordered Alison Sy to open the bank vault so they could get all the money inside but Sy refused to do so having no instructions from the head office. Hence Cachero and his men started destroying the first grill door with the use of acetylene torch and a big hammer. Ms. Mercado persuaded Cachero to stop because a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was already issued and on its way. But Cachero further proceeded to torch the Safe Deposit boxes found inside the vault. When Sy intervened, Cachero instead opted to destroy the cash vault lock combination. Still they could not open the cash vault even if they torched its side hinges. Instead, Cachero took the money amount to P20,000.00 inside a steel cabinet and the cash from the teller's drawers amounting to P140,000.00. When the TRO arrived and served on Cachero, he still took the money with him when he left the bank."

Also attached to the PBCom complaint were photographs of the damaged grill doors and vault of the bank as well as the sworn Spot Report of Head Guard of PBCom, Joiet Evangelio corroborating the Joint Affidavit of PBCom Branch Manager, cashier and employees that indeed Cachero used force and harassment in implementing the writ, passing himself off as a depositor when he and his men entered the bank premises.

In his Comment dated 10 September 1996, Cachero explained that on 15 May 1996 he conferred with the president of PBCom and demanded settlement of the money judgment. He was advised to pick up the Manager's Check the following day but the bank did not make good its promise. After having the writ blottered at the PNP Makati City Police Station he and his companions proceeded to the PBCom branch at Buendia. There he served the writ on the branch manager who requested to be given time to get in touch with the bank's Legal Department. When the branch manager failed to deliver to them the amount under the writ, he seized the amount of P160,730.53 and issued the corresponding receipt therefor.

The sheriff further explained that he was unable to fully implement the writ because the branch manager intentionally closed the bank vault. Having no other alternative, and being clothed with a writ and a surety bond, he used legal force to effect the implementation. Upon his receipt of the TRO at 4:45 pm, that day, he immediately stopped the implementation and left the bank with the amount of P160,730.53.

Cachero supported his explanation with the Affidavit dated 21 August 1996 of Sheriff Angel Doroni, RTC, Branch 77, Quezon City. Doroni stated therein that he was the one who had the writ of execution blottered at the Makati City Police Station; that the implementation of the writ was carried out smoothly and in an orderly manner; that the amount taken by Cachero was properly receipted; and that it was proper for Cachero to use force because he was clothed with a writ of execution and a surety bond that would answer for the damaged vault and grill doors of the bank.

The investigation conducted by the undersigned on 15 January 1997 to 28 February 1997 disclosed that on 16 May 1996 at about 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon, Cachero entered the bank premises pretending to be a bank depositor, together with a representative from FALCON. Shortly thereafter, his escorts arrived, composed of policemen in five (5) Mobile Patrol Cars; a Major with a Swat Team; six (6) acetylene boys three (3) ABS-CBN crew; SPO2 Pablo de Guzman and Assisting Sheriff Angel Doroni. Respondent sheriff then asked the guard to accompany him to the bank manager, Elizabeth Mercado. He showed the writ to Ms. Mercado who was surprised because the writ was addressed to PBCom-BMA Quezon City branch and not her branch at Buendia, Makati City. Parenthetically, during the investigation, Cachero testified that upon the prodding of FALCON, he opted to implement the writ at the Buendia branch since the guards at the Quezon City head office outnumbered them.

Ms. Mercado then informed the bank's Legal Department by phone about the service of the writ and the bank lawyer talked with Cachero also over the phone and informed the latter that a TRO had been issued by the Court of Appeals and that he will fax a copy thereof to the branch. Cachero refused to recognize the faxed copy of the TRO and proceeded to implement the writ by taking possession of the moneys of the three (3) tellers of the bank totaling P140,730.53. He then directed Ms. Mercado to open the cash vault but the manager refused to do so without instructions from the head office. Cachero then directed his "acetylene" boys to torch and destroy the grill doors, and force open the cash vault until its lock combination was destroyed. Cachero ordered the torching of the side hinge of the vault but despite this, that portion of the vault could not be opened. He then took the P20,000.00 cash he found in a steel cabinet in the vault. When the original copy of the TRO arrived and was handed over to him, he stopped the torching of the cash vault, issued a receipt for the money he seized and left together with his companions.

The investigation also revealed that on 15 May 1996 Cachero had gone to see the President of PBCom at its head office. He notified the bank of the writ implementation but was advised to return the following day to collect the execution amount. On 16 May 1996 at 11:30 a.m., Cachero went to the bank but was unable to meet with any of the bank lawyers. He left and returned at 12:50 p.m. and left fifteen minutes later as there were yet no lawyers around. At 2:30 p.m., he proceeded to the PBCom Buendia Branch to enforce the writ.

Evaluating the evidence, the OCA concluded that respondent gravely abused his authority in implementing the writ of execution:

The complaint has merit. The Sheriff is a court officer primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all judicial processes and writs. It is well settled that the moment a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of other instructions by the court, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate.

But should "speed" be the test of efficient service? Like all other rights and duties, a sheriff's duty, although ministerial, is also subject to limitations. There is no question that it was Cachero's duty to implement the writ of execution dated 14 May 1996 issued by the Hon. Judge Pedro T. Santiago which was placed in his hands also on 14 May 1996. Respondent sheriff should have afforded the PBCom reasonable time to comply with whatever judgment the court had rendered. Considering that the life of the writ is sixty (60) days from receipt by him, and that he served notice on the PBCom head office on 15 May 1996, he should have given the bank sufficient time to comply with the writ. When asked to return the following day, 16 May 1996, Cachero waited for only less than an hour to meet with PBCom's lawyer. He then proceeded to implement the writ that same afternoon. There is no showing that he gave sufficient allowance to the bank to respond to the writ. Seemingly, he was inordinately eager to implement the writ right away rather than allow the lawful and orderly compliance by PBCom of its obligations under the writ.

Moreover, the manner in which Cachero and his companions implemented the writ at PBCom Buendia Branch was no less than deplorable. Cachero admitted that it was upon FALCON's instructions that the implementation be made at the Buendia branch instead of the Quezon City head office, for the reason that the guards at the head office "outnumbered" his (Cachero's) men. As testified to by Cachero himself, even the torching of the vault was upon the instigation of FALCON. By acceding to the latter's requests, he actually extended an undue favor to FALCON, which act prejudiced herein complainants and impaired the orderly administration of justice. Acting upon the directive of FALCON to implement the writ instead at Buendia branch, to bring "acetylene" boys and an ABS-CBN crew, as well as to use torch to open the vault, he lent himself as an instrument to harass and embarass PBCom and its employees who at that particular time were busy attending to the needs of their depositors and clients.

The fact that Ms. Mercado advised Cachero that a TRO was forthcoming should have impelled respondent sheriff to exercise prudence by deferring implementation of the writ and asking his police escorts to guard the vault in the meantime. The writ of execution itself and the guarantee of a surety bond to answer for whatever damages the bank may sustain did not vest in him an unlimited authority to transgress the bounds of his duty. Implementing the writ does not carry with it a license to effect a massive destruction of bank properties. The Court has reminded sheriffs time and again that they "in particular, must show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of the delicate task assigned to them" (Bador vs. Garchitorena, [271 SCRA 23]). There is no doubt that Cachero exceeded his powers which were limited to the faithful execution of the court's orders. His prerogative as sheriff did not give him a carte blanche to destroy property; rather, it imposed on him the duty to protect it from needless waste.

It bears stressing that even during the investigative proceedings Cachero was observed to be arrogant and impolite while answering questions addressed to him. This is reflected in the transcript of stenographic notes taken of the proceedings. As an officer of the court, Sheriff Cachero is duty-bound to conduct himself with propriety and decorum. He should always bear in mind that arrogant or oppressive conduct diminishes the faith and trust people have in the judiciary. Cachero's manner of implementing the writ on complainant bank constitutes grave abuse of authority for which he deserves to be sanctioned by this Court.

In view thereof, the OCA recommends that respondent be fined the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.

The findings and recommendation are, for the most part, well taken. We clarify that, by itself, the swiftness by which respondent implemented the writ of execution does not warrant sanction. When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it in accordance with its mandates.^[2] In the absence of instructions or a restraining order, he is bound to serve the writ of execution with dispatch.^[3]

Taken in conjunction with the overzealous manner by which respondent executed the judgment, however, the speed of its implementation assumes a sinister significance. We agree with the OCA that the manner by which respondent Sheriff implemented the writ constituted grave abuse of authority. In Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Torio,^[4] cited by the OCA in its Report, this Court condemned the use of unnecessary force in the enforcement of the writ of the execution. The case is on all fours with the present one, as may be discerned from the following:

x x x Torio and Gumboc acted in palpable excess of their authority when, in enforcing the alias writ of execution of the trial court, they peremptorily destroyed the vault of the PBCom Buendia Branch over the objections of the bank employees. They consequently caused damage to bank property just because the bank employees allegedly refused to recognize the documents presented to them as bases for the seizure of the funds of the bank.

The authority of a sheriff is broad but it is not boundless. In the enforcement of judgments and judicial orders, a sheriff as an officer of the court upon whom the execution of a final judgment depends, must necessarily be circumspect and proper in his behavior. He must know what is inherently right and wrong and is bound to discharge his duties with prudence and caution. Moreover, he must at all times show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of his duties.

A sheriff is required to perform the duties of his office without needless severity or oppression as he is an agent of the law. In enforcing a writ, he must not exercise unnecessary violence or subject the persons on whose premises he enters to indignities and he is liable where process is legally and properly issued but afterwards employed wrongfully and unlawfully by him. Hence, a sheriff may be held liable for negligent or wrongful acts in the execution of process causing damage to property.

Contrary to the claims of complainant, the enforcement of the writ of execution by Torio and Gumboc were not prematurely made. Nonetheless, the same were irregularly done in an oppressive manner. It is conceded that respondents took it upon themselves to force open and destroy the bank vault when the bank employees refused to open the vault and turn over the cash demanded from them in satisfaction of the judgment. The pictures submitted in evidence show that they went to the bank provided with an acetylene torch, a large acetylene tank, and a big sledgehammer.

It was imprudent of Torio and Gumboc to resort to such unwarranted force and unnecessary destruction of property merely because the officers of the PBCom Buendia Branch supposedly refused to cooperate with them and meet their demands. It is clear that what initially transpired was a mere misunderstanding as the bank officials were seeking clarification as to the validity of the writ and the finality of the decision presented to them.

Respondents could have resolved the dispute in a lawful, prudent and orderly manner, observing the high degree of diligence and professionalism expected of them as agents of the law. They could have sealed or placed the vault under guard and asked the prevailing party to obtain a "break open" or appropriate judicial order, instead of being more interested than the litigant corporation itself and employing extreme measures by summarily destroying the vault in order to seize the cash kept therein. This is the kind of individual offensive conduct that unfairly puts the entire corps of sheriffs in disrepute or public suspicion, to the prejudice of the dedicated and trustworthy members thereof.

Public officials and employees should at all times respect the rights of others and act with justness. They should necessarily refrain from doing acts contrary to law and public order. The use of force by respondents and the resulting damage to bank property was clearly unjustified and is unacceptable. Respondents Torio and Gumboc acted with grave abuse of their authority and are guilty of gross misconduct. This Court will not tolerate or condone any conduct of judicial agents or employees which would tend to or actually diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary. With the number of incidents reported to this Court involving abusive sheriffs, it is high time to take firm action and make this case serve as an example of such judicial policy and resolve.

The Court thus found respondent sheriffs in the above case guilty of gross misconduct and ordered them to each pay a fine of P5,000.00, with a warning that a repetition of the same or any similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely.

Respondent sheriff in the present case has failed to live up to the standards enunciated in Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Torio. Worse, in enforcing the writ with apparently undue haste, unusual vigor, and unseemly arrogance, which he also displayed during the investigation, Sheriff Cachero has betrayed his lack of impartiality. We have consistently held that the conduct of every person connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but also, above all else, be above suspicion.^[5] Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice, and as agents of the law, high standards are expected of them.^[6]

WHEREFORE, Respondent Sheriff Efren V. Cachero is hereby declared GUILTY of gross misconduct in irregularly enforcing the writ of execution in complainant bank's Buendia Branch in a high-handed manner and with the use of unnecessary and unwarranted force. He is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of P5,000.00, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or any similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this decision be attached to the personal records of respondent herein.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] 279 SCRA 364 (1997).

^[2] Onquit vs. Binamira-Parcia, 297 SCRA 354 (1998).

^[3] Portes vs. Tepace, 267 SCRA 185 (1997).

^[4] 284 SCRA 67 (1998).

^[5] Banogon vs. Arias, 247 SCRA 17 (1997); Vda. de Tisado vs. Tablizo, 253 SCRA 646 (1996); Lepanto Consolidated Mining Compay vs. Melgar, 256 SCRA 600 (1996); Office of the Court Administrator vs. Fuentes, 247 SCRA 506 (1996), .

^[6] Llamado vs. Ravelo, 280 SCRA 597 (1997).