THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-99-1317. August 1,
2000]
ARMANDO M. CANLAS and RUBY C. DUNGCA, complainants, vs. Sheriff
CLAUDE B. BALASBAS, Regional Trial Court of Angeles City (Branch 59), respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Section 9 of Rule
141 requires that the sheriff's estimate of expenses in the execution of a writ
should be approved by the judge. The approved estimated amount shall be
deposited with the clerk of court who, as ex officio sheriff, shall then
disburse the same to the assigned sheriff. Hence, a sheriff who receives from
the parties an amount that is not included in the approved estimate and is not
deposited with the clerk of court is guilty of violating the said provision.
The
Case
Armando M. Canlas
and Ruby C. Dungca filed a sworn Complaint[1] dated January 18, 1998, accusing Sheriff Claude B.
Balasbas, Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, of gross misconduct and
dereliction of duty in connection with the execution of two Writs of
Attachments.
On May 6, 1998,
Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo directed respondent to file a comment.
In his May 28, 1998 Comment,[2] respondent denied any wrongdoing.
Subsequently, the
Court referred the case to Executive Judge Eliezer Delos Santos for
investigation, report and recommendation.
The
Facts
In his
Report/Recommendation dated August 27, 1999, the investigating judge made the
following factual findings:[3]
"On June 30
and July 18, 1998, Branch 61 of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City issued
two writs of attachment in Civil Cases Nos. 8651 and 8659 respectively. Both
writs of attachment were assigned to respondent Sheriff Claude Balasbas for
implementation.
In compliance with
the Writ of Attachment issued in Civil Case No. 8651, respondent levied on
attachment real and personal properties of the defendant on July 1 and July 3,
1997 as follows:
1) Levy on
attachment over a parcel of land in Angeles City (Exh. 'C' and Exh. '3')
2) Levy on
attachment over a parcel of land in Mabalacat, Pampanga (Exh. ‘D’ and Exh. '4')
3) Levy on
attachment over two motor vehicles (Exh. 'B' and Exh. '2')
4) Garnishment of
deposits with the Landbank of the Philippines, Angeles City branch (Exh. 'E'
and Exh. 'E-1' and Exh. '5' and '5-a')
A Sheriff Report
dated July 7, 1997 (Exh. ‘F’ and Exh. ‘6’) was accordingly submitted in Court.
In compliance with
the Writ of Attachment issued on July 18, 1997 in Civil Case No. 8659,
respondent sheriff levied on attachment the real properties of the defendant
located at Angeles City (Exh. 'T' and Exh. ‘9’) and over a parcel of land in
Mabalacat, Pampanga (Exh. '5' and Exh. '10') on July 18 and 22, 1997 (Exh. 'K'
and Exh. '11') respectively.
A Sheriff Report
was accordingly submitted in court to show compliance with the said Writ.
It is the
contention of complainant Armando Canlas that before implementing the writ,
respondent Sheriff told them that he needed at least P2,000.00 for his gasoline
allowance. The said amount was given by the complainant personally to the
respondent in front of Mr. Rubio, complainant's neighbor and respondent's
kumpadre. On July 2, 1997, respondent Sheriff again allegedly asked for an
additional amount of P3,000.00 as sheriff's fee thru Mr. Rubio who in turn
allegedly gave the amount to the respondent.
On the other hand,
complainant Ruby Dungca alleges that respondent originally asked from her a
sheriff's fee of P5,000.00 but the said amount was later reduced to P2,500 upon
her request, Later respondent thru Mr. Rubio asked for an additional amount of
P5,000.00 which she gave to Mr. Rubio. Mr. Rubio testified that he gave the
said amount to the respondent.
Both complainants
aver that although they were able to pinpoint to Sheriff Balasbas the
whereabouts of the two cars owned by defendant Dolores Cruz, the latter failed
to take possession of them. Hence on July 6, 1997, they decided to see
respondent to inquire from him about the development of the case, specifically
regarding the two aforementioned cars. The respondent told them that he already
had talked to Mrs. Marie Balboa Gomez, a sister of defendant Dolores Cruz, who
promised to surrender the cars the following week. On July 12, 1997,
complainants again went to respondent's house to inform him where the cars
could be found but the latter replied that the necessary papers were not with
him at that time as he had left them at his desk in the office. On July 26,
1997, complainant Armando Canlas looked for the cars and found the Mitsubishi
Galant car in the possession of Mr. Bon Jovi Maniti. He hurriedly went to
respondent's house and relayed the information to him only to be informed by
the latter that the papers were at his office.
Respondent
stressed that at the very outset he had faithfully complied with the directives
embodied in the Writ of Attachment dated 30 June 1997 (Exhibit 'A' and Exhibit
‘1’) issued in Civil Case No. 8651. The Writ of Attachment was issued for
complainant Canlas' claim of P350,000.00.
In like manner, he
alleged that he faithfully complied with the directives in the Writ of
Attachment dated 18 July 1997 (Exhibit 'H' and Exhibit ‘8’) issued in Civil
Case No.8659. Respondent with dispatch levied on real properties belonging to
the defendant.
Respondent
admitted that he received P2,000.00 from Armando Canlas but denied that he
asked [for] and received an additional P3,000.00. He averred that he used the
P2,000.00 for the levy on attachment and the remainder he used as his gasoline
expenses and for food as he used his own car and Homer Rubio was always with
him. He denied receiving P2,500.00 from Ruby Dungca and later demanded and
received an additional P500.00. He however admitted that he received P1,500.00
from Mrs. Dungca when the latter went to his office. He used the money given to
him by Dungca to have her claims annotated on the title of Dolores Cruz's
property.
He denied the
allegations of Armando Canlas insofar as the two vehicles of Dolores Cruz
[were] concerned. He alleged that he was ready to take possession of the said
two vehicles whenever and wherever he [would] find them. He just found
difficulty locating them. In order to protect the interest of the complainant,
he had the levy [i]n the latter's favor annotated on the registration papers of
the two vehicles."
Recommendation
of the Investigating Judge
The investigating
judge found that respondent violated Section 9 of Rule 141 because he had
accepted sums of money from complainants purportedly to cover his expenses in
the execution of the Writs of Attachment. Hence, he recommended that respondent
be found guilty of serious misconduct and fined in the amount of P5,000.
The
Court's Ruling
We agree with the
findings and the recommendation of the investigating judge.
Liability
of Respondent Sheriff
Respondent's duty
in the present case is prescribed in Section 9 of Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court, which states:
"SEC. 9.
Sheriff, and other persons serving processes.
xxx...........................xxx ...........................xxx
(c) For executing
a writ of attachment against the property of defendant, fifty (P50.00) pesos;
xxx...........................xxx...........................xxx
(g) For executing
a writ of process to place a party in possession of real estate, one hundred
(P100.00) pesos;
xxx...........................xxx...........................xxx
(k) For issuing a
notice of garnishment, for each notice, twenty (P20.00) pesos;
(l) For money
collected by him by order, execution, attachment, or any other process,
judicial or extrajudicial, the following sums, to wit:
1.....On
the first four thousand P4,000.00 pesos, four (4%) per centum.
2.....On
all sums in excess of four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos two (2%) per centum.
"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 report shall be submitted by the deputy
sheriff assigned with his return, and the sheriff's expenses shall be taxed as
costs against the judgment debtor."
The foregoing
provision requires that the sheriff's estimate of the expenses to be incurred
in the execution of a writ should be approved by the judge. It further directs
that the approved estimate be deposited with the clerk of court and ex
oficio sheriff, who shall then disburse the same to the sheriff assigned to
implement the writ. Moreover, any unspent amount shall then be refunded to the
party making the deposit.[4]
In this case,
respondent admits that he did in fact ask for and receive P2,000 from Canlas
and P1,500 from Dungca for gasoline and other expenses necessary to implement
the two Writs of Attachment. The amount was not part of the approved estimate
of expenses and was not deposited with the clerk of court, but came directly
from complainants for the use of respondent. Clearly, respondent sheriff
violated the aforecited provision.
The following
pronouncement of the Court in Ong v. Meregildo[5] is appropriate
in this case:
"Respondent
[sheriff] failed grievously to comply with the above requirements of Section 9.
Respondent knew, or should have known, that he had to present his cost
estimates for implementation of the Writ of Demolition and Possession to the
court issuing the Writ for its approval. He did not do so. Respondent Sheriff
repeatedly charged and collected from complainant sums of money without
approval of the Court. He did not deposit the sums received from complainant
with the Clerk of Court who, under Section 9, was then authorized to disburse
the same to respondent Sheriff to effect implementation of the writ. x x
x."
That the said
amounts were given to respondent voluntarily did not make the misconduct less
reprehensible. It has been held that sheriffs cannot receive gratuities or
voluntary payments from parties they are ordered to assist in the course of
their duties.[6]
Once again we
stress that high standards are expected of sheriffs, who play an important role
in the administration of justice. As we explained in Vda. de Abellera v.
Dalisay:[7]
"At the
grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are
indispensably in close contact with the litigants, hence, their conduct should
be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court, for the
image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or
otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least
and lowest of its personnel; hence, it becomes the imperative sacred duty of
each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a
temple of justice."
WHEREFORE, respondent sheriff is hereby found GUILTY of
serious misconduct and FINED P5,000 with a stern warning
that a repetition of the same or a similar infraction shall be dealt with more
severely.
SO ORDERED.
Melo,
(Chairman), Vitug, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes,
JJ., concur.