Suelto v. Forniza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Jose A. Suelto filed a complaint against Deputy Sheriffs Rogelio P. Forniza and Bonifacio V. Maputi for allegedly deducting ₱9,000.00 from the judgment money received from the defendants in Civil Case No. 8911. Atty. Suelto claimed that the sheriffs also received ₱1,500.00 as sheriff's fee from his client, Mrs. Remedios Vda. De Repollo, the plaintiff, and that it is the defendant who should pay such fees. Atty. Suelto stated that this deduction prevented him from receiving his contingent fee. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for investigation. The OCA submitted its findings and recommendations. The case was subsequently referred to Judge Eleuterio E. Chiu, who inhibited himself. It was then raffled to Judge Restituto V. Tuanda, Jr., who dismissed the case for want of prosecution. The case was again referred to Judge Rosendo B. Bandal, Jr., who recommended dismissal, finding that Mrs. Repollo testified that the ₱9,000.00 was not appropriated by the sheriffs but was spent for her son's hospital bills, and that Atty. Suelto had coerced her into signing an affidavit. The Petition: The complainant, Atty. Suelto, alleged that the respondent sheriffs deducted ₱9,000.00 from the judgment money and also received ₱1,500.00 as sheriff's fee from the plaintiff, which should have been paid by the defendant.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriffs illegally deducted ₱9,000.00 from the judgment money. Whether the respondent sheriffs violated Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court by accepting money for unauthorized expenses.
Ruling
The Court found that the complainant failed to prove the illegal deduction of ₱9,000.00. However, it found that the respondent sheriffs violated Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court by accepting money from the plaintiff for unauthorized expenses such as snacks and transportation fares, and for the allowance of accompanying police officers. Consequently, the respondent sheriffs were suspended for three (3) months without pay with a stern warning.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged illegal deduction of ₱9,000.00: The complainant failed to substantiate the claim that the respondent sheriffs deducted ₱9,000.00 from the judgment money. The records showed that Mrs. Remedios Vda. De Repollo, the prevailing party and complainant's client, signed receipts for the total amount of ₱36,749.29, which represented the judgment money minus ₱3,500.00 still to be collected from a defendant. Furthermore, Mrs. Repollo herself testified that the ₱9,000.00 was spent for her son's hospital bills and that Atty. Suelto had pressured her to sign the affidavit. On the violation of Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court: The Court found that the respondent sheriffs violated Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. This rule mandates that the party requesting the process shall pay the sheriff's expenses, which must be estimated, approved by the court, and subject to liquidation. The respondents accepted money from the plaintiff, which they used for their snacks, transportation, and for the allowance of police officers who assisted them. There was no showing that these expenses were estimated, submitted to the court for approval, or that they were among those authorized by the Rules of Court. The Court cited Lim vs. Guash and Abalde vs. Roque, Jr. to support its ruling that such acts constitute a violation of the said rule.
Main Doctrine
Sheriffs are prohibited from accepting money from a party for expenses not authorized by the Rules of Court, such as snacks and allowances for accompanying police officers, as these expenses must be properly estimated, approved by the court, and liquidated.