Sheriffs Must Follow Strict Procedures When Handling Funds and Property

A.M. No. P-12-3098 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3704-P), October 03, 2023

Imagine a scenario where a sheriff, entrusted with enforcing a court order, demands money directly from you without proper documentation. This not only raises questions of impropriety but also undermines the integrity of the judicial system. The Supreme Court case of *Reynaldo M. Solema v. Ma. Consuelo Joie Almeda-Fajardo* delves into this very issue, examining the administrative liabilities of a sheriff who failed to adhere to established procedures in executing a writ.

This case highlights the crucial role of sheriffs in upholding the rule of law and the severe consequences they face when they deviate from established procedures. It revolves around a complaint filed against Sheriff Fajardo for malfeasance, grave misconduct, and illegal exaction in relation to a Writ of Execution.

Legal Framework for Sheriff’s Duties and Liabilities

The Revised Rules of Court and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel provide the legal backbone for the conduct of sheriffs. Understanding these rules is essential to grasp the gravity of the sheriff’s misconduct in this case.

Rule 141, Section 10 of the Rules of Court is very clear on how sheriffs should handle expenses related to executing writs: “…the interested party shall pay said expenses in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process, subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process. The liquidation shall be approved by the court.”

This provision aims to prevent sheriffs from directly handling funds from litigants, ensuring transparency and accountability. It also protects parties from potential abuse or extortion. The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel further mandates that court personnel shall not accept any fee or remuneration beyond what they are entitled to in their official capacity and must use resources judiciously.

Rule 39, Section 16 dictates the procedure when a third party claims ownership of levied property. The rule states that “If the property levied on is claimed by any person other than the judgment obligor or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer making the levy and copy thereof, upon the judgment obligee, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property…”

For example, imagine a sheriff levies a vehicle in front of your house, but your neighbor claims it is his, presenting you a notarized Deed of Sale. Per Rule 39, the sheriff cannot simply return the vehicle, there must be an affidavit filed with the officer making the levy and a copy served to the judgment obligee.

The Case of Solema v. Fajardo: A Sheriff’s Missteps

The case unfolds with Reynaldo Solema, the complainant, alleging that Sheriff Fajardo demanded and received PHP 18,000.00 from him to implement a Writ of Execution against Monica Dana. Solema further claimed that Fajardo seized a Starex Van but later released it to Monica’s brother-in-law in exchange for PHP 100,000.00.

Sheriff Fajardo, in her defense, argued that she released the vehicle because Monica Dana, the judgment debtor, was not the owner.

The investigation revealed that Fajardo indeed received PHP 18,000.00 directly from Solema without court approval and failed to liquidate the amount. The Court also found inconsistencies in Fajardo’s justification for releasing the Starex Van. The Executive Judge found Fajardo guilty of dereliction of duty and grave misconduct.

The Supreme Court highlighted two key points from the case:

• Fajardo violated Rule 141, Section 10 of the Rules of Court by directly demanding and receiving money from Solema without court approval.
• Fajardo violated Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court releasing the seized vehicle without proper documentation or court order.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to proper procedure: “A sheriff’s conduct of unilaterally demanding sums of money from a party without observing the proper procedure falls short of the required standards of public service and threatens the very existence of the system of administration of justice.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found Ma. Consuelo Joie Almeda-Fajardo guilty of two counts of Gross Misconduct and one count of Serious Dishonesty.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

This case reinforces the critical need for sheriffs and all court personnel to adhere strictly to procedural rules and ethical standards. The ruling sends a clear message that any deviation from these standards will be met with serious consequences.

Key Lessons:

• Sheriffs must never demand or receive money directly from litigants without court approval.
• All expenses related to the execution of writs must be processed through the Clerk of Court.
• Sheriffs must follow the procedure outlined in Rule 39, Section 16 when dealing with third-party claims on levied property.

For instance, if you are a business owner and a sheriff levies on your inventory based on a Writ, make sure to ask about the Sheriff’s estimate of expenses. Ensure these expenses are deposited with the Clerk of Court. Demand official receipts for all payments.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is illegal exaction?

A: Illegal exaction refers to the act of a public official demanding or receiving money or other things of value that are not legally due, or demanding more than is legally due.

Q: What constitutes grave misconduct for a sheriff?

A: Grave misconduct involves a serious violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, often involving corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.

Q: What is the proper procedure for sheriff’s expenses?

A: The sheriff must estimate the expenses, obtain court approval, and have the interested party deposit the amount with the Clerk of Court. The sheriff must then liquidate the expenses with the court.

Q: What should I do if a sheriff demands money directly from me?

A: Refuse the demand and immediately report the incident to the Executive Judge of the court where the case is pending and the Office of the Court Administrator.

Q: What happens if a third party claims ownership of property levied by a sheriff?

A: The third party must execute an affidavit of ownership and serve it on the sheriff and the judgment creditor. The sheriff is not bound to keep the property unless the judgment creditor posts a bond to indemnify the third-party claimant.

ASG Law specializes in civil litigation and administrative law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.