Garcia v. Asilo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Cresencio Garcia filed a complaint against Alberto Asilo, a Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance in Malolos, Bulacan. The complaint alleged negligence in the service of summons for two civil cases, Civil Cases Nos. 110217 and 110218, which were instituted in the Court of First Instance at Manila. These cases involved Remedios Garcia, et al. as plaintiffs against Aurelio Sanchez and Ceferino Perez as defendants. 2. Procedural History: The complaint was initiated by Cresencio Garcia via a letter-subscription and sworn statement dated October 21, 1977, addressed to the Secretary of Justice. The respondent, Alberto Asilo, submitted a comment on the complaint. The Supreme Court, upon review of the facts presented in the record, determined that a formal investigation was unnecessary and proceeded to render a resolution based on the existing information. 3. The Petition: This matter reached the Supreme Court as an administrative complaint filed by Cresencio Garcia against Deputy Sheriff Alberto Asilo. The core of the complaint was the alleged negligence and delay in serving summonses, which took approximately three months to effect. Additionally, the respondent was accused of illegal exaction for demanding and receiving an additional P18.10 from the complainant for which no official receipt was issued, beyond the P11.90 already paid and receipted for the service of the summonses.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent deputy sheriff was negligent in the service of summonses. Whether the respondent deputy sheriff was guilty of illegal exaction.
Ruling
The respondent deputy sheriff is suspended for three (3) months without pay, ordered to refund P18.10 to the complainant, and warned against repetition of the offense. He is also admonished to be prompt in attending to his duties.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence in the service of summonses: The Court found that it took the respondent approximately three months to finally serve the summonses upon the defendants. While the respondent offered excuses for the delay, these were deemed insufficient to warrant a complete exoneration. The Court emphasized that the period taken was excessive and constituted negligence in the performance of his duties as a deputy sheriff. On the issue of illegal exaction: The respondent did not deny demanding and receiving an additional P18.10 from the complainant for which no receipt was issued. The Court found no justification for this act, especially considering the nominal fees for serving summonses on only two defendants. The amount of P11.90 for which official receipts were issued was deemed more than sufficient for the sheriff's fees. Therefore, the respondent was found guilty of illegal exaction for demanding and receiving the unreceipted amount.
Main Doctrine
A deputy sheriff who fails to serve summons within a reasonable period and demands and receives an amount for which no receipt is issued is guilty of illegal exaction and negligence, warranting suspension and refund.