This case clarifies the stringent rules governing sheriffs’ conduct in handling funds during court-ordered executions. The Supreme Court affirmed that sheriffs who demand and receive money from litigants without proper court approval and without rendering a detailed accounting are guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. This infraction can result in severe penalties, including dismissal and forfeiture of retirement benefits, emphasizing the high standard of integrity expected of court officers.

Demanding Justice: When a Sheriff’s ‘Usual Practice’ Violates the Rules of Court

The case revolves around a complaint filed by Sabino L. Aranda, Jr., one of the plaintiffs in an ejectment case, against Sheriffs Teodoro S. Alvarez and Roderick O. Abaigar. Aranda alleged that the sheriffs falsified an official document by stating they had implemented a writ of demolition when they had not. Additionally, Aranda claimed that the sheriffs demanded and received P40,000 for the execution of the writ. While the falsification charge was dismissed due to lack of evidence, the admission by Alvarez and Abaigar that they received P40,000 from the complainant triggered a deeper investigation into their financial practices.

The Court’s analysis hinged on Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which meticulously outlines the procedure for handling expenses related to the execution of writs. According to this rule, sheriffs must provide an estimated budget, secure court approval, and ensure that the involved party deposits funds with the clerk of court. Only then can the designated deputy sheriff access these funds, subject to rigorous liquidation and court approval. Crucially, the rule stipulates that any unspent funds must be returned to the depositing party, creating a transparent system of accountability. A key tenet is that sheriffs cannot unilaterally demand or receive payments directly from parties involved in a case. This provision aims to prevent any appearance of impropriety or extortion.

Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court provides:
With regard to sheriff’s expenses in executing writs issued pursuant to court orders or decisions or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guards’ fees, warehousing and similar charges, the interested party shall pay said expenses in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court.

In this instance, the sheriffs failed to adhere to a single step of the outlined procedure. They did not provide an estimate, seek court approval, or arrange for a deposit with the clerk of court. The sheriffs even stated they were unaware of the regulations stipulated under Section 10, indicating their blatant disregard for the proper protocol. Adding weight to their misconduct, testimony revealed that it was their “usual practice” to verbally agree with parties on expenses. This admission demonstrated a pattern of disregarding proper financial procedures and a lack of awareness regarding the established rules for handling funds. The Supreme Court emphasized that a sheriff’s good faith or lack thereof is irrelevant, because as officers of the court, sheriffs are presumed to be knowledgeable of the law.

The Court deemed their actions as dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Citing previous cases, the Court reiterated that receiving money in excess of the fees prescribed by the Rules is an unlawful exaction. The ruling in Bernabe v. Eguia, states, “Good faith on the part of the sheriff, or lack of it, in proceeding to properly execute [his] mandate would be of no moment…[Sheriffs] are not allowed to receive any voluntary payments from parties in the course of the performance of their duties.”

Given these violations, the Supreme Court meted out severe penalties. For Sheriff Alvarez, who had already retired, his retirement benefits, with the exception of accrued leave credits, were forfeited, and he was permanently disqualified from government re-employment. For Sheriff Abaigar, the Court ordered his dismissal from service, including forfeiture of all retirement benefits except for accrued leave credits, also with a perpetual ban from government service.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the sheriffs violated the Rules of Court by demanding and receiving money from a litigant without proper court approval and without providing an accounting of the funds.
What is Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court?	This section outlines the procedure for handling expenses related to the execution of writs, requiring sheriffs to estimate expenses, obtain court approval, and deposit funds with the clerk of court, subject to liquidation and court approval.
What did the sheriffs admit in their defense?	The sheriffs admitted to receiving P40,000 from the complainant to cover expenses for the demolition but claimed it was standard practice to verbally agree on such amounts without formal documentation or court approval.
Why did the Court dismiss the falsification charge?	The Court dismissed the falsification charge due to lack of substantial evidence, as the complainant could not prove that the sheriffs falsely reported the implementation of the writ of demolition.
What penalties did the Court impose on the sheriffs?	The Court forfeited Sheriff Alvarez’s retirement benefits and disqualified him from future government employment. Sheriff Abaigar was dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and a ban from government employment.
What constitutes grave misconduct for a sheriff?	Grave misconduct includes demanding and receiving money in excess of the fees allowed by the Rules, failure to follow the proper procedure for handling expenses, and acting with a disregard for the duties expected of a court officer.
How does this ruling affect the public’s trust in the judiciary?	This ruling underscores the importance of maintaining integrity and accountability within the judiciary, ensuring that court officers adhere to the highest ethical standards and that the public can trust in the fair administration of justice.
Are sheriffs allowed to receive voluntary payments from parties?	No, sheriffs are not allowed to receive voluntary payments from parties during the performance of their duties; all expenses must be estimated, court-approved, and handled through the clerk of court.

This decision reaffirms the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding the integrity of the judiciary by ensuring strict compliance with procedural rules. By penalizing the sheriffs for their unlawful actions, the Court sends a clear message that such misconduct will not be tolerated and that court officers will be held to the highest standards of accountability.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SABINO L. ARANDA, JR. vs. TEODORO S. ALVAREZ, A.M. No. P-04-1889, November 23, 2007