ELIZABETH
DIMAANO, G.R. No. 176783
Petitioner,
Present:
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
- versus - BERSAMIN,*
DEL CASTILLO,**
ABAD, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
THE
HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and
REPUBLIC
OF THE
Respondents.
June 27, 2012
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This is a case about the propriety of
collecting sheriffs percentage fee on the execution of a court order for return
to a party of money that the government illegally confiscated from her.
The Facts and the Case
On March 3, 1986 respondent Republic
of the Philippines, acting through the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG), confiscated cash of P2,868,850.00 and US$50,000.00 and
some items from petitioner Elizabeth Dimaanos (Dimaano) house on a belief that
they were ill-gotten wealth of an army general who belonged to the martial law
regime.[1] The PCGG subsequently filed a forfeiture action
against her and others before the Sandiganbayan.[2]
On November 18, 1991 the Sandiganbayan
dismissed the forfeiture case against Dimaano and ordered the Republic to return
the money and items it seized from her.[3] On July 21, 2003 this Court affirmed the
order.[4] Consequently, Dimaano filed with the
Sandiganbayan a motion for the release of the seized cash and items[5] which
that court granted on March 3, 2005[6]
and further affirmed on August 1, 2005.[7]
Following the issuance of the writ of
execution on February 14, 2006,[8] Dimaano
discovered that the PCGG had transferred the money to accounts that needed
allocation documents from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) before
it could be withdrawn from the National Treasury. Eventually, however, the mistake was rectified
and on April 4, 2006 the Bureau of Treasury released a P4,058,850.00 check
to Dimaano in partial satisfaction of the writ.[9] But the Sandiganbayan assessed Dimaano P163,391.50
as sheriffs percentage collection fee[10] pursuant
to A.M. 04-2-04-SC Re: Revision of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
Dimaano filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Sandiganbayans assessment order.[11] She assailed it as unwarranted since the
sheriffs percentage collection fee applied only to actions for money covering collectibles
or unsatisfied debts or in actions pertaining to interest-bearing obligations. She also argued that the fee assessment would
be iniquitous in her case because a) it penalized her when in fact, she was the
wronged party; and b) it rewarded the police officers transgressions of her
rights.[12]
On January 5, 2007 the Sandiganbayan
denied Dimaanos motion for reconsideration, holding that the assessment of the
challenged fee was not dependent on the nature of the case but on the fact of
collection. And since the rule did not
distinguish between money collected and money returned through the
sheriffs effort, neither should petitioner, hence, Dimaanos recourse to this
Court.
Issue Presented
The sole issue presented in this case
is whether or not the Sandiganbayan rightfully assessed Dimaano a sheriffs
percentage collection fee on the money that the Republic returned to her
pursuant to the writ of execution that the court issued in the case.
Ruling of the Court
Dimaano attempts to make a
distinction between money ordered collected from the judgment debtor and paid
to the judgment creditor and money ordered returned by one party to another
from whom such money was unlawfully taken.
Dimaano claims that she was already a victim when the government
illegally seized her money. It would be
unfair that she should still pay the government some fee to get her money back.
But, first, the imposition of
the sheriffs fee is not a penalty for some wrong that Dimaano had done. It is an assessment for the cost of the
sheriffs service in collecting the judgment amount for her benefit. Its collection is authorized under Rule 141
of the Rules of Court, as amended,[13]
thus:
x x x x
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 x x x.
x x x x
SEC. 10. Sheriffs,
PROCESS SERVERS and other persons serving processes. x x x (l) For money
collected by him x x x by order, execution, attachment, or any other process,
judicial or extrajudicial which shall immediately be turned over to the Clerk
of Court, x x x.
Second, the order to pay a party the money
owed him and the order to pay another the money unlawfully taken from him are
both awards of actual or compensatory damages.
They compensate for the pecuniary loss that the party suffered and
proved in court.[14] The recipients of the award, whether for
money owed or taken from him, benefit from the courts intervention and service
in collecting the amount. As the Sandiganbayan
correctly said, what determines the assessment of the disputed court fee is the
fact that the court, through valid processes, ordered a certain sum of money to
be placed in the hands of the sheriff for turnover to the winning party.
In addition to raising before the
Court the matter of the sheriffs fee, Dimaano also questions the Sandiganbayans
failure to award interest on the amount that was to be returned to her considering
that the government used and invested the money as if it were its own. But, as the Republic points out, Dimaano
could no longer seek the award of interest since she filed no appeal from the
decision of the Sandiganbayan that ordered merely the return of such amount
with no mention of interest.[15]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Resolutions of the
Sandiganbayan dated July 25, 2006 and January 5, 2007 that assessed petitioner
Elizabeth Dimaano sheriffs percentage fee for the partial satisfaction of the
writ of execution dated February 14, 2006.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296,
The
Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
*
Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, per
Special Order 1241 dated June 14, 2012.
**
Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta,
per Raffle dated June 27, 2012.
[1]
[2] The case was docketed before the Sandiganbayan as Civil Case 0037 (Republic v. Josephus Ramas and Elizabeth Dimaano); records, Vol. 1, pp. 11-39.
[3] Rollo, pp. 32-60.
[4] Republic
of the
[5] Records, Vol. 1, pp. 202-204.
[6] Penned by Presiding Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro (now a member of
the Court) and concurred in by Justices Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. and Efren N.
dela Cruz.
[7] Penned by Presiding Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro (now a member of
the Court) and concurred in by Justices Diosdado M. Peralta (now also a member
of the Court) and Efren N. dela Cruz.
[8] Rollo, pp. 115-116.
[9] The pieces of jewelry had not yet been returned to Dimaano.
[10] Rollo, pp. 118-119; Resolution written by Justice Diosdado M. Peralta and concurred in by Presiding Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro (both are now members of the Court) and Justice Efren N. De La Cruz.
[11] Records, Vol. 2, pp. 69-72.
[12] Rollo, pp. 120-123.
[13] Amended by A.M. 04-2-04-SC effective August 16, 2004.
[14] Civil Code, Article 2199 in relation to Articles 2195 and 1157.
[15] Rollo, pp. 130-145.