Sheriffs Must Strictly Account for Funds Received and Follow Proper Procedures

A.M. No. P-95-1158, July 14, 1997

Imagine a scenario where you entrust a public official with funds to carry out a court order, only to find that the money is spent without proper accounting or adherence to regulations. This situation highlights the critical importance of accountability and transparency in the actions of law enforcement officers, particularly sheriffs. The case of Eufemia Bercasio vs. Herberto Benito underscores the stringent standards to which sheriffs are held regarding the handling of funds and the execution of court orders. It serves as a reminder that public office demands the highest level of honesty and adherence to procedural rules.

This case revolves around a complaint filed against a sheriff for irregularities in handling funds intended for the implementation of a demolition order. The sheriff failed to properly account for the money received and did not adhere to the prescribed procedures for disbursing and liquidating such funds. This led to an administrative case that clarified the duties and liabilities of sheriffs in the Philippines.

Legal Framework Governing Sheriff’s Duties

The duties and responsibilities of sheriffs in the Philippines are governed by the Rules of Court and other relevant laws and regulations. These provisions aim to ensure that sheriffs act with integrity, transparency, and accountability in the performance of their duties. Key legal principles and provisions relevant to this case include:

• Rule 141, Section 9 of the Rules of Court: This section outlines the fees and expenses that sheriffs are entitled to collect for serving court processes. It also mandates that the party requesting the process must deposit the estimated expenses with the Clerk of Court, who then disburses the funds to the sheriff.

Specifically, the revised second paragraph of Section 9 of Rule 141 states:

“In addition to the fees hereinabove fixed, the party requesting the process of any court, preliminary, incidental, or final, shall pay the sheriff’s expenses in serving or executing the process, or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guards’ fees, warehousing and similar charges 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. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party making the deposit. A full shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, and the sheriff’s expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgement debtor.” (7a)

• Section 113 of Article III, Chapter V of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual: This provision requires collecting officers to issue official receipts immediately upon receiving any payment.

These regulations are in place to prevent abuse, ensure proper accounting, and protect the interests of the parties involved in court proceedings. Failure to comply with these rules can result in administrative liability for the sheriff.

The Case of Bercasio vs. Benito: A Detailed Look

The case began when Eufemia Bercasio, through her attorney-in-fact Pastor Bravo, filed a complaint against Sheriff Herberto Benito for irregularities related to his failure to implement a demolition order. Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• Initial Payment: Bercasio paid Benito a total of P8,000.00 in several installments to cover the expenses of implementing the demolition writ.
• Writ Quashed: Before Benito could implement the writ, it was quashed by the court.
• Demand for Accounting: Bercasio demanded that Benito account for the P8,000.00 and return any unspent amount.
• Partial Accounting: Benito submitted a written accounting, claiming to have spent P7,880.00 and depositing the remaining P120.00 with the Clerk of Court.
• Formal Complaint: Unsatisfied with the accounting, Bercasio filed a formal complaint, leading to an investigation by the Executive Judge.

The investigation revealed that Benito had not deposited the funds with the court as required by the Rules of Court. Instead, he directly received the money from Bercasio and only submitted an accounting after being prompted. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures, stating:

It appears to this Court that respondent sheriff acted irregularly when he submitted his undated Sheriff’s Partial Report and Sheriff’s Return without liquidating the amounts previously received. In fact, he only submitted an accounting of his expenses when it was already formally requested. Persons involved in the administration of justice, like the herein respondent sheriff, ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service and must at all times be circumspect to preserve the integrity and dignity of our courts of justice.

Furthermore, the Court noted that Benito violated Section 113 of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual by issuing handwritten receipts on scraps of paper instead of official receipts.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found Benito administratively liable for his actions. While his failure to implement the writ was excused due to circumstances beyond his control (an encounter between the NPA and the military), his mishandling of funds and failure to follow proper procedures warranted disciplinary action.

Practical Implications for Sheriffs and Litigants

This case has significant implications for sheriffs and parties involved in court proceedings. It underscores the importance of strict compliance with the Rules of Court and other relevant regulations regarding the handling of funds and the execution of court orders. For sheriffs, it serves as a reminder to:

• Adhere to the prescribed procedures for estimating, receiving, disbursing, and liquidating funds.
• Issue official receipts for all payments received.
• Maintain transparency and accountability in all their actions.

For litigants, this case highlights the need to be vigilant and ensure that sheriffs are following the proper procedures. It also emphasizes the importance of documenting all transactions and seeking legal advice if any irregularities are suspected.

Key Lessons

• Strict Compliance: Sheriffs must strictly comply with the Rules of Court and other relevant regulations.
• Proper Accounting: All funds received must be properly accounted for and disbursed according to the prescribed procedures.
• Transparency: Sheriffs must maintain transparency in all their actions to preserve the integrity of the justice system.

This case reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust, and those who hold such positions must act with the highest standards of honesty and integrity.

Frequently Asked Questions

Here are some frequently asked questions related to the duties and liabilities of sheriffs in the Philippines:

Q: What are the primary duties of a sheriff?

A: The primary duties of a sheriff include serving court processes, executing court orders, and safeguarding property levied upon or seized.

Q: How should a sheriff handle funds received for the execution of a court order?

A: A sheriff should estimate the expenses to be incurred, have them approved by the court, and require the interested party to deposit the amount with the Clerk of Court. The sheriff should then disburse the funds according to the prescribed procedures and liquidate them within the required period.

Q: What is the consequence of failing to issue an official receipt for payments received?

A: Failing to issue an official receipt for payments received is a violation of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual and can result in administrative liability.

Q: Can a sheriff demand additional payments from a party-litigant without court approval?

A: No, a sheriff cannot unilaterally demand additional payments without obtaining court approval. All expenses must be estimated, approved by the court, and properly accounted for.

Q: What recourse does a party-litigant have if they suspect a sheriff of irregularities?

A: A party-litigant can file a complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator or the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court for investigation and appropriate action.

Q: What penalties can be imposed on a sheriff found guilty of irregularities?

A: Penalties can range from suspension to dismissal from service, depending on the gravity of the offense.

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