De Guzman v. Mendoza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr. filed a complaint against Sheriff IV Antonio O. Mendoza and Branch Clerk of Court Floro G. Calixihan for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the judiciary. The charges stemmed from the alleged connivance of the respondents in causing the issuance of an alias writ of execution and profiting from rentals collected from tenants of a subject property. The original decision in Civil Case No. 979 was rendered on May 2, 1988, in favor of the defendant. An alias writ of execution/possession/ejectment/demolition and others was issued on April 4, 2001, which included directives for transfer of possession, ejectment, payment of monthly rentals, and demolition, not covered by the original decision. Respondent sheriff allegedly intimidated tenants to vacate, pay P50,000.00 monthly rentals, and demolish structures. The complainant alleged that the sheriff intentionally failed to attach page 3 of the alias writ, which contained the signatory, date, and dispositive portion of the original decision that did not mention ejectment, rentals, demolition, or possession. From May 2001 to March 2002, the sheriff allegedly gathered tenants at a panciteria where the counsel for the defendant collected rentals and issued receipts in the name of a stranger to the case, with the sheriff receiving his share. Procedural History: The complaint was initially handled by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The OCA noted that the alias writs were declared null and void by the Supreme Court. The complaint against Calixihan was dismissed. The case against respondent sheriff was docketed as a regular proceeding, and the charge of financial participation in proceeds was referred to the Executive Judge of RTC-Makati City for investigation. Executive Judge Sixto Marella, Jr. found respondent sheriff guilty of simple misconduct and recommended suspension for thirty days without pay, establishing that the sheriff received P24,000.00 and P1,500.00 in rentals and P500.00 from Atty. Melotindos as alleged legal fees, which exceeded the limit under Section 9, Rule 141. The OCA agreed with the investigating judge, recommending suspension for one month and one day without pay. The Supreme Court adopted the OCA's findings but modified the penalty. The Petition: The complainant sought disciplinary action against the sheriff for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the judiciary.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent sheriff is guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for receiving money from the lawyer of the prevailing party without complying with Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. Whether respondent sheriff committed any infraction in the enforcement of the void alias writ of execution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent sheriff Antonio O. Mendoza guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and suspended him for one year without pay. The Court ruled that while there was no proof of the sheriff's participation in the issuance of the void alias writ or any infraction in its enforcement, his act of gathering tenants and receiving P500.00 from Atty. Melotindos, which exceeded lawful fees and was not processed according to Rule 141, constituted unauthorized fees and unlawful exaction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent sheriff is guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for receiving money from the lawyer of the prevailing party without complying with Rule 141 of the Rules of Court: The Court held that there is sufficient proof that the respondent sheriff gathered the plaintiffs' tenants and received P500.00 from Atty. Melotindos. This fact was undisputed and the sheriff offered no explanation or denial, instead resorting to labeling the accusation as harassment. The Court emphasized that under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, sheriffs must follow a specific procedure for estimating expenses, obtaining court approval, depositing funds with the Clerk of Court, disbursement by the Clerk of Court, and liquidation of expenses. Receiving any amount in excess of lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court constitutes an unlawful exaction, rendering the sheriff liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty. The Court cited previous cases, Adoma v. Gatcheco and Apuyan, Jr. v. Sta Isabel, where sheriffs were found liable for similar acts of accepting and soliciting unauthorized monetary considerations, which were deemed unauthorized fees and unlawful exactions. The Court further noted that even if the P500.00 represented legal fees, the sheriff failed to comply with the procedural requirements under Section 9, Rule 141, making his acts of accepting and soliciting such monetary considerations a violation. On the issue of whether respondent sheriff committed any infraction in the enforcement of the void alias writ of execution: The Court found no proof that the respondent sheriff participated in the issuance of the void alias writ of execution, nor did he commit any infraction in its enforcement. The Court clarified that the duty of a sheriff to execute a valid writ is ministerial and not discretionary. When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate, strictly to the letter. At the time of its enforcement, the sheriff had no way of knowing that the alias writs would ultimately be nullified by the Supreme Court. Therefore, when he ordered the tenants to vacate, pay monthly rentals, and demolish structures, he was merely implementing the writ as issued by the judge, a purely ministerial act.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff who receives money from a lawyer of the prevailing party without complying with the procedural requirements for the estimation, approval, deposit, disbursement, and liquidation of expenses under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, and accepts amounts exceeding lawful fees, is guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.