FELICIANO O. FRANCIA vs. ROBERTO C. ESGUERRA, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 14, Davao City, A.M.
No. P-14-3272 [Formerly: OCA IPI No. 14-4264-P], November 11, 2014
“x x x.
The duties of sheriffs in the implementation of writs are
explicitly laid down in Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended,
which reads:
Sec. 10. Sheriffs, process servers and other persons serving
processes. – x x x
x x x x
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 anamount estimated by the sheriff, subject to 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. Any unspent amount shall be
refunded to the party making the deposit. A full report shall be submitted by
the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, the sheriff’s expenses shall be
taxed as cost against the judgment debtor. (Emphasis supplied)
The aforesaid rule enumerated the steps to be followed in the
payment and disbursement of fees for the execution of a writ, to wit: (1) the
sheriff must prepare and submit to the court anestimate of the expenses he
would incur; (2) the estimated expenses shall be subject to court approval; (3)
the approved estimated expenses shall be deposited by the interested party with
the Clerk of Court, who is also the ex-officio sheriff; (4) the Clerk of Court
shall disburse the amount to the executing sheriff; (5) the executing sheriff
shall thereafter liquidate his expenses within the same period for rendering a
return on the writ; and (6) any amount unspent shall be returned to the person
who made the deposit. It is clear from the enumeration that sheriffs are not
authorized to receive direct payments from a winning party. Any amount to be
paid for the execution ofthe writ should be deposited with the Clerk of Court
and it would be the latter who shall release the amount to the executing
sheriff. The amount deposited should be spent entirely for the execution only
and any remainder of the amount should be returned.
Respondent sheriff acknowledged his receipt of the P3,000.00 from Feliciano and
explained that it was for legal expenses. Other than his vague explanation,
there was no accounting ofthe P3,000.00
he admitted to have received. In fact, there was also no showing that a
liquidation was prepared and submitted to the court as required under the
rules.
Even if Feliciano was amenable to the amount requested or that the
money was given voluntarily, such would not absolve respondent sheriff from
liability because of his failure to secure the court’s prior approval. We held
in Bernabe v. Eguia8 that
acceptance of any other amount is improper, even if it were to be applied for
lawful purposes. Good faith on the part of the sheriff, or lack of it, in
proceeding to properly execute its mandate would be of no moment, for he is
chargeable with the knowledge that being the officer of the court tasked therefore,
it behooves him to make due compliances. In the implementation of the writ of
execution, only the payment of sheriff’s fees may be received by sheriffs. They
are not allowed to receive any voluntary payments from parties in the course of
the performance of their duties. To do so would be inimical to the best
interests of the service because even assuming arguendo that such payments were
indeed given and received in good faith,this fact alone would not dispel the
suspicion that such payments were made for less than noble purposes. In fact,
even "reasonableness" of the amounts charged, collected and received
by the sheriff is not a defense where the procedure laid down in Section 10,
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court has been clearly ignored.
The rules on sheriff’s expenses are clear-cut and do not provide
procedural shortcuts. A sheriff cannot just unilaterally demand sums of money
from a party-litigant without observing the proper procedural steps otherwise,
it would amount to dishonesty and extortion9 .
And any amount received in violation of Section 10,Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court constitutes unauthorized fees. Respondent sheriff is charged with neglect
of duty. In the implementation of writs, sheriffs are mandated to follow the
procedure under Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules, which reads:
SEC. 14. Return of writ of execution. –
The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing itimmediately
after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. Ifthe judgment cannot
be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the
officer shall report to the court and state the reason therefore. Such writ
shall continue in effect during the period within which the judgment may be
enforced by motion. The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty
(30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in
full, or its effectivity expires. The returns or periodic reports shall set
forth the whole of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and
copies thereof promptly furnished the parties. Respondent sheriff would want us
to believe that his failure to implement the writ was brought about by
circumstances beyond his control. He maintained that the defendants wereadamant
in staying in the subject property. Thus, he had to seek police assistance
which he obtained only after several months of waiting. Respondent sheriff
further alleged that he thereafter waited for Feliciano to appear before him so
that he could proceed with the implementation of the writ.
We find respondent sheriff’s contention untenable. His being
remiss in his duties was underscored by the fact that a year had passed without
the writ being implemented. If his contention was true, then he could have
still complied with his duty by making a return on the writ within 30 days from
his receipt thereof and submitting periodic reports every 30 days thereafter
until it was satisfied in full. Respondentsheriff failed in accomplishing any
of these. We held in Mendoza v. Tuquero10 that
sheriffs have no discretion on whether or not to implement a writ. There is no
need for the litigants to "follow-up" its implementation. When writs
are placed in their hands, it is their ministerial duty to proceed with
reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with their
mandate. Unless restrained by a court order, they should see to it that the
execution of judgments is not unduly delayed.11 Respondent
sheriff’s failure to implement the writ gives rise to presumption that he was
waiting for additional financial consideration from Feliciano or that he has
already received a bribe from the losing party to stall the writ’s
implementation. We have previously ruled that failure of the sheriff to carry
out what is a purely ministerial duty, to follow wellestablished rules in the
implementation of court orders and writs, to promptly undertake the execution
ofjudgments, and to accomplish the required periodic reports, constitute gross
neglect and gross inefficiency in the performance of official duties.12 Records
reveal that this is not the first offense of respondent sheriff. In A.M. No.
P-07-2370 dated 14 September 2007, he was suspended by the Court for one (1)
month for dereliction of duty. Records further reveal that another charge of
neglect of duty (OCA IPI No. 12-3880-P) is pending before the Legal Office,
OCA.13
As a final note, it cannot be over-emphasized that sheriffs are
ranking officers of the court. They play an important part in the
administration of justice – execution being the fruit and end of the suit, and
the life of the law. In view of their exalted position as keepers of the faith,
their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity
of the court.14 Respondent
sheriff failed to live up to this standard. It is evident that he never learned
from his previous infraction. Having tarnished the good image of the judiciary,
he should not be allowed to stay a minute longer in the service.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Roberto C. Esguerra, Sheriff IV,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Davao City GUILTY of dishonesty, gross neglect
of duty and gross inefficiency in the performance of official duties.
Accordingly, he is DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all his
retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice
to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
X x x.”
