Go v. Hortaleza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jorge Q. Go (complainant) was the defendant in an ejectment case before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Mangaldan, Pangasinan. The MTC rendered an adverse decision. On August 21, 2003, while a motion for reconsideration was pending, Vinez A. Hortaleza (respondent), a Deputy Sheriff, seized and levied upon the complainant's Toyota Corolla. The vehicle was impounded and exposed to the elements. To secure its release, the complainant deposited P161,042.00 with the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC). Procedural History: The MTC denied the motion for reconsideration but granted the motion for release of the motor vehicle upon deposit. Upon order of the MTC, the respondent released the vehicle. However, the complainant alleged that before releasing the car, the respondent demanded P5,000.00 for expenses in implementing the writ of execution. The respondent issued an acknowledgment receipt for this sum but did not provide an official receipt. The complainant repeatedly demanded the return of the P5,000.00 or an official receipt, to no avail. The Petition: The complainant filed an administrative complaint against the respondent for Abuse of Authority and Illegal Exaction. The respondent, in his comment, claimed the P5,000.00 was for mechanic's fees, key master's fees, and transportation expenses, citing Rule 39 of the Rules of Court regarding sheriff's expenses. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended suspension for one month.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff committed abuse of authority and illegal exaction in demanding and receiving P5,000.00 for expenses related to the implementation of a writ of execution. Whether the respondent sheriff violated the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A. No. 6713) by failing to respond promptly to the complainant's inquiries and failing to issue an official receipt.
Ruling
The Court found the respondent guilty of simple misconduct and a violation of R.A. No. 6713. He was suspended for two (2) months without pay and reprimanded. He was sternly warned that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of demanding and receiving P5,000.00 for expenses: The Court held that the respondent sheriff is accountable for demanding and receiving money from the complainant without observing the proper procedure prescribed in Section 9, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court. This procedure requires the sheriff to estimate expenses, obtain court approval, have the deposit made with the Clerk of Court, disbursement by the Clerk of Court to the sheriff, and liquidation by the sheriff. The respondent failed to follow these steps, demanding and receiving the money directly from the complainant without prior court approval or proper deposit with the Clerk of Court. While the respondent provided a breakdown of expenses, this did not justify his deviation from the prescribed procedure. The Court also doubted the veracity of his claim that he turned over the P5,000.00 to the judgment creditor's counsel. On the violation of R.A. No. 6713: The Court found that the respondent failed to comply with his duties under R.A. No. 6713, specifically Section 5(a) and (d), which mandate prompt action on letters and requests from the public and expeditious attention to personal transactions. The respondent did not respond to the complainant's letter and ignored the request for an official receipt for the P5,000.00. This failure to adhere to the law and observe proper procedure constitutes simple misconduct. The Court emphasized that sheriffs, as front-line representatives of the justice system, must uphold high standards of conduct, integrity, uprightness, and honesty to maintain public trust in the judiciary. His actions diminished the people's faith in the judiciary.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff is accountable for demanding and receiving money from parties-litigants without observing the proper procedure prescribed by the Rules of Court, specifically regarding the estimation, approval, deposit, disbursement, and liquidation of expenses incurred in the implementation of a writ of execution. Failure to respond promptly to public inquiries and to issue official receipts for sums received in official capacity constitutes simple misconduct and a violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.