21/9/2014 DIGESTO!: CASE DIGEST: Mamanteo v Magumun

http://sjdigesto.blogspot.com/2014/09/case-digest-mamanteo-v-magumun.html 1/1

CASE DIGEST: Mamanteo v MagumunBASILIO P. MAMANTEO, FLORENTINO B. TRINIDAD, BONIFACIO MANGANIP andEDGAR S. SALLIDAO vs. DEPUTY SHERIFF MANUEL M. MAGUMUN

FACTS: The forest employees of the DENR, Cordillera Administrative Region tasked withthe enforcement of forestry laws, intercepted a San Miguel Corporation van with narraflitches wrapped in nylon sack. The driver of the van could not produce any legal permitauthorizing him to transport the narra lumber. The vehicle and its load of narra flitcheswere confiscated.

A criminal complaint against driver Martinez was filed for violation of Sec. 78 of P.D.705[2] as amended, and implemented by DENR Administrative Order 59. After due noticeand opportunity to be heard, an order of forfeiture of the vehicle and its load was issued bythe DENR Regional Office pursuant to its quasi-judicial authority.

Thereafter, San Miguel Corporation, the owner of the vehicle, filed a case for recovery ofpersonal property and damages with application for writ of replevin with the RTC ofTuguegarao, Cagayan. The trial court issued a warrant of seizure of personal propertywhich was enforced by Dep. Sheriff Magumun despite the refusal of the DENR employeesand officials on the ground that it had already been forfeited in favor of the governmentand was now in custodia legis. The sheriff took the van without permission and turnedover to SMC representative.

ISSUE: Whether or not the deputy sheriff committed a grave misconduct in taking hold ofthe personal property which is already in custodial legis confiscated by other governmentagency.

RULING: A sheriffs prerogative does not give him the liberty to determine who among theparties is entitled to the possession of the attached property; much less does he have anydiscretion to decide which agency has primary jurisdiction and authority over the matter athand. When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of anyinstructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness toexecute it according to its mandate. However, the prompt implementation of a warrant ofseizure is called for only in instances where there is no question regarding the right of theplaintiff to the property. In this case, the prudent recourse then for respondent was todesist from executing the warrant and convey the information to his judge and to theplaintiff.