Office of the Court Administrator v. Corea
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a letter from the General Manager of the Rural Bank of Polomolok questioning a Billing Statement dated June 30, 2009, issued by Sheriff Roger D. Corea for P6,000.00, representing sheriff service fees and incidental expenses for two extrajudicial foreclosure cases (EJF Case Nos. 11-09 & 12-09). The bank inquired about the propriety and legality of these charges. Procedural History: The letter was referred to the Executive Judge of RTC-Branch 39, who required Sheriff Corea to comment. Sheriff Corea denied the imputations, claiming the billing was a standard practice with the previous General Manager and that the amounts were subject to the current General Manager's approval. The bank, through its former Board members, alleged that they paid previous billings out of fear of delays. The OCA treated the matter as an administrative complaint, and the case was referred for investigation. The investigating judge noted difficulties in securing clarification from the complainant and observed that sheriffs typically do not bill parties directly, with fees usually being fixed amounts given by parties to sheriffs or handled through estimates. The investigating judge recommended admonishment or reprimand for Sheriff Corea. The OCA, however, found Sheriff Corea guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and recommended a fine. The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA's findings but modified the penalty. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed against Sheriff Roger D. Corea for allegedly illegally collecting service fees and incidental expenses for extrajudicial foreclosures.
Issue(s)
Whether Sheriff Roger D. Corea is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for billing and collecting sheriff service fees and incidental expenses directly from a bank for extrajudicial foreclosures. Whether Sheriff Corea's practice of billing and collecting fees directly from parties, even if subject to approval, is in accordance with Supreme Court rules and circulars.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Sheriff Roger D. Corea guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and suspended him without pay for two months. The Court also sternly warned him that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Sheriff Corea's guilt for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: The Court affirmed the OCA's finding that Sheriff Corea was guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court emphasized that sheriffs play a vital role in the administration of justice and must perform their duties honestly and faithfully, maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court. Sheriff Corea's act of billing and collecting service fees and incidental expenses directly from the Rural Bank of Polomolok for extrajudicial foreclosures was found to be unauthorized and contrary to established rules. This conduct, even if claimed to be in good faith or subject to adjustment, placed the Judiciary in a bad light and was susceptible to public suspicion of dishonesty or extortion. The Court reiterated the pronouncement in Judge Tan v. Paredes that a sheriff cannot unilaterally demand sums of money without observing proper procedural steps, as it amounts to dishonesty or extortion. On the issue of the propriety of Sheriff Corea's billing and collection practices: The Court found Sheriff Corea's practice to be without authority and in violation of Supreme Court rules. Circular No. 7-2002 clearly states that only the Clerk of Court is authorized to collect filing fees for extrajudicial foreclosures, subject to specific schedules and guidelines. Sheriff Corea's claim that the amounts were not fixed and were subject to the bank's approval did not legitimize his actions. The Court noted that the amount of P3,000.00 per case was arbitrary and not justified by the prescribed fees. Furthermore, Sheriff Corea did not claim to have turned over any collected amounts to the Clerk of Court, indicating a deviation from proper procedure. The Court also found it believable that the bank previously paid such billings out of fear of delays in the foreclosure proceedings, highlighting the coercive potential of such unauthorized collections.
Main Doctrine
A Sheriff is not authorized to bill and collect service fees and incidental expenses for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgages directly from the parties. Such collections must be made by the Clerk of Court in accordance with prescribed guidelines and schedules of fees. Unauthorized collection by a Sheriff constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.