THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-00-1392. July 13, 2000]
WILSON B. TAN, complainant, vs. JOSE A. DAEL, Deputy
Sheriff, Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City (Branch 36), respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, J.:
A sheriff must
observe the rules for executing a writ. Any act deviating from the procedures
laid down by this Court is considered a misconduct that would warrant
disciplinary action.
The
Case and the Facts
On September 22,
1997, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a letter-complaint
from Dr. Wilson B. Tan accusing Deputy Sheriff Jose A. Dael[1] of misappropriating the money collected in Civil
Case No. 96-147. Dr. Tan narrated:
"Pursuant to
the Writ of Execution dated August 21, 1996 issued by Branch Clerk of Court
Eugene D. Salon of Branch 2 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Dumaguete
City, of the sala of Judge Felipe T. Torres, in Civil Case No. 96-147, Deputy
Sheriff Jose A. Dael was tasked by Clerk of Court Thelma Garcia to enforce the
writ, a copy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex ‘A’. On November
9, 1996, the said deputy sheriff was able to collect from the defendants P2,000.00,
but he did not remit the same to Branch Clerk of Court Eugene Salon, a [copy]
of the receipt is hereto attached as Annex ‘B’. In his Sheriff’s Return of
Service dated February 17, 1997, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex
‘C’, only the sum of P2,500.00 was remitted to the court.
Surpr[i]singly, in his reply letter dated August 28, 1997 Mr. Jose A. Dael
asserted that the amount of P1,500.00 was for his services in serving
the writ allegedly six (6) times.
"I do not
believe in his assertion because he is a government employee and whatever he
collected should still be remitted to the government."[2]
In response to a
letter-indorsement[3] of the OCA, Respondent Dael filed on May 12, 1998
his Answer denying any liability and praying for the dismissal of the
Complaint. He explained:
"1.....The
writ of execution in question dated August 26, 1996 was issued by the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities of Dumaguete City, Branch II as a result of a decision
rendered by that Court in Civil Case No. 96-147 entitled: Wilson Tan
versus Myrna Vailoces, et al. Since defendant Myrna Vailoces resides in
Barrio Dumolog, Bindoy, Negros Oriental, the writ of execution was raffled
among the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Clerk of Court of Negros Oriental. [sic]
Consequently, it was assigned to him for execution, he being the Deputy Sheriff
of the RTC, Branch 36 of Dumaguete City. The amount of P7,000.00 was
sought to be executed such being the settlement amount as stated in paragraph 6
of a Compromise Agreement which was the basis of the trial court’s decision;
"2.....In
his first attempt to serve the writ of execution x x x in the first week of
September, 1996, undersigned met the defendant Myrna Vailoces and her husband.
Defendant Vailoces and husband admitted their inability to pay the amount
claiming that they had no money, though they promised to pay the week after.
Note that Myrna Vailoces is a public school teacher, while the husband is
sickly and jobless. They have five (5) children all of school age. Around and
within the defendant’s house, nothing of value could be taken to answer for
their obligations and neither [were] there any real properties;
"3.....Sometime
[i]n the second week of September, 1996, the undersigned went back to Dumolog,
Bindoy, Negros Oriental in order to collect the judgment money as promised, but
defendant Myrna Vailoces was out of Bindoy;
"4.....Ten
(10) days after, he went back to Dumolog, Bindoy, and this time sought the
assistance of the Barangay Captain Mrs. Merlina Narciso to collect the judgment
money. The barangay captain promised to help though she told him to come back
the following week;
"5.....He
returned and personally met the defendant at the office of the Barangay Captain
where defendant promised to tender the payment to the barangay captain soonest.
He informed the defendant that all expenses in the execution of the writ shall
be charged to defendant’s account.
"6.....On
November 9, 1996, undersigned went to see the Barangay Captain to check if
there was any payment made be defendant Vailoces. The amount of P2,000.00
was tendered by the Barangay Captain which he received and receipted;
"7.....The
following day, November 10, 1996, the amount of P800.00 was deposited
with the Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 36, less the P1,200.00 as expenses
for transportation, food and per diems incurred during the previous attempts of
executions;
"[I]n the early
part of February, 1997, P300.00 was withdrawn by him from the Clerk of
Court of RTC, Branch 36 leaving the balance of P500.00. He proceeded to
Dumolog, Bindoy where Myrna Vailoces paid another P2,000.00 which was
duly acknowledged;
"8.....So,
on February 17, 1997, he went to see Wilson Tan at the latter’s clinic in
Dumaguete City and tendered the amount of P2,500.00, including the
remaining P500.00 deposited with the Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 36. However,
Mr. Tan arrogantly refused to accept it claiming that [he had] to consult first
his lawyer Atty. Herbert Timtim. So, the undersigned re-deposited the whole
amount of P2,500.00 with the Clerk of Court of Branch 36;
"9.....From
sources reliable to him, undersigned knew that on February 24, 1997, Mr. Tan
was looking for him obviously fuming mad during which he was out on field for
an execution of another writ. Yet, Mr. Tan got the P2,500.00 from the
Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 36;
"10.....The
total amount so far collected by the undersigned from Defendant Myrna Vailoces,
et al., was P4,000.00, deducting therefrom the amount of P1,500.00
by the undersigned as expenses for previous executions leaving the balance of P4,500.00;
"11.....The
amount of P1,500.00, so far collected by the undersigned is reasonable
owing to hi[s] expenses for the execution and per diems mandated by the
Rules."
On March 6, 2000,
this Court issued a Resolution requiring the parties to manifest whether they
were submitting the case for disposition on the basis of the pleadings on file.
In their respective Manifestations, both parties agreed that no further
evidence was necessary, and that the case should be deemed submitted for
decision.
OCA
Report and Recommendation
The OCA found
Sheriff Dael guilty of misappropriating the money he had collected in Civil
Case No. 96-147. It explained:
"It is
apparent then that respondent has blatantly disregarded and violated the
aforecited Rules. Respondent simply deducted his allowance and transportation
expenses from the amount he collected from defendants upon his own initiative
and volition, without even informing the complainant of the same as a matter of
courtesy and respect expected from an officer of the court. Respondent neither
sought prior approval from the court nor waited for the requesting party to
deposit the needed amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff to
defray whatever expenses he incurred.
Admittedly,
respondent is entitled to sheriff’s fees. However, the amount he appropriated
for said fees exceeded that allowed by the Rules. What was sanctioned was only
4% of the first P4,000.00. Hence, respondent is entitled only to P160.00
and not P1,500.00 as he very much claimed to be reasonable based on his
frequent return trips to defendant’s place. There was absolutely no legal
justification for respondent to extract and appropriate the P1,500.00 he
collected.
Further, in the
case of Padilla vs. Arabia, 242 SCRA 227, this Court emphasized that:
‘When a writ is
placed in the hands of a sheriff it is duty, in the absence of any instructions
to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute
it according to its mandate. He is to execute the order of the court
strictly to the letter. He has no discretion, much less authority, to grant a
judgment debtor a grace period within which to settle his obligation.’
By granting
defendants ample time and enough excuses to settle their obligation, respondent
was the one mainly responsible why the writ was returned unsatisfied for
several times. He cannot arrogate upon himself the power of determining whether
or not to grant a grace period to defendants."[4]
This
Court’s Ruling
This Court finds
respondent guilty of misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service, and dishonesty.
Respondent’s
Administrative Liability
The money
respondent received from the judgment debtor was for the specific purpose of
satisfying the trial court’s judgment approving the Compromise Agreement of the
parties. Respondent is not allowed to deduct any expense incurred in executing
the writ, pursuant to Rule 141 of the Rules of Court which we quote below:
"SEC. 3.....Persons authorized to collect legal fees. – Except as otherwise provided in this rule, the
officers and persons hereinafter mentioned, together with their assistants and
deputies, may demand, receive, and take the several fees hereinafter mentioned
and allowed for any business by them respectively done by virtue of their
several offices, and no more. All fees so collected shall be forthwith
remitted to the Supreme Court. The fees collected shall accrue to the
general fund. However, all increases in the legal fees prescribed in amendments
to this rule shall pertain to the Judiciary Development Fund as established by
law. The persons herein authorized to collect legal fees shall be accountable
officers and shall be required to post bond in such amount as prescribed by
law.
x x x............x x x ............x x x
"SEC. 9.....Sheriff, and other persons serving processes.--
x x x............x x x ............x x x
"(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, for (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." (Emphasis supplied)
It is clear that
respondent sheriff deviated from the foregoing rules. This Court considers him
guilty of misconduct for his failure to observe the following: (1) preparing an
estimate of expenses to be incurred in executing the writ, for which he must
seek the court’s approval; (2) rendering an accounting; and (3) issuing an
official receipt for the total amount he received from the judgment debtor.
Likewise, he is liable for deducting, from the money the complainant should
have deposited in court, P1,500 for expenses the former incurred.
Further, we find
respondent guilty of dishonesty. In the Return of Service which he filed, he
lied when he stated that, first, the total amount the judgment debtor
paid was P2,500, when in fact the amount paid was P4,000; and
that, second, the latter still owed complainant P4,500 when the
balance was actually P3,000 only.
Respondent’s
conduct fell miserably short of the standard required of court employees. By
the very nature of their functions, sheriffs must conduct themselves with
propriety and decorum,[5] so as to be above suspicion at all times. This Court
will not tolerate any Court employee’s conduct, act or omission that violates
the norm of public accountability and diminishes or tends to diminish the faith
of the people in the judiciary.[6]
We stress that
sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice. Hence, high
standards are expected of them.[7] As we explained in Vda. de Abellera v. Dalisay:[8]
"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, this Court orders respondent deputy sheriff’s SUSPENSION
from office for ONE MONTH without pay, with the stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will merit severe
disciplinary action. Further, he is ordered to pay complainant the amount of P1,500
which he misappropriated.
SO ORDERED.
Melo,
(Chairman), Vitug, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes,
JJ., concur.
[1] Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 36.
[2] Rollo, p. 3. Words in brackets supplied.
[3] Dated March 26, 1998.
[4] Rollo, pp. 17-18.
[5] Flores v. Caniya, 256 SCRA 518, April 26,
1996.
[6] Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Melgar,
256 SCRA 600, April 30, 1996.
[7] Llamado v. Ravelo, 280 SCRA 597, October 16,
1997.
[8] 268 SCRA 64, 67, February 12, 1997, per Melo, J.