Malabanan v. Ruiz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Bryan T. Malabanan, Paralegal Officer of UCPB Savings Bank (UCPB), filed an Affidavit-Complaint against respondent Reuel P. Ruiz, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 84, for grave misconduct and violation of Republic Act No. 6713. Malabanan alleged that on February 22, 2018, UCPB filed a petition for extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage involving 98 titles against Francisco Allarilla and his family, which was raffled to respondent Ruiz. On April 12, 2018, after the auction sale where UCPB was the highest bidder, respondent Ruiz issued a Billing for Sheriff's Fee demanding P5,000.00 per title, totaling P490,000.00. Malabanan contended that this amount was unconscionable, without basis, and lacked court approval as mandated by Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, constituting solicitation of money. Procedural History: In his Comment, respondent Ruiz denied attempting to collect money, stating the billing was merely a guide for UCPB to estimate fees and was based on a 'tolerated practice' among banks, expecting complainant to agree. He also argued the complaint was premature and no amount had been received. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent guilty of soliciting money, a violation of Section 50(A)(10) of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS), and recommended dismissal from service. The Petition: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for resolution of the issue of whether the respondent committed improper solicitation.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent committed improper solicitation in violation of Section 50(A)(10) of the 2017 RACCS. Whether respondent's billing for sheriff's fees was legally justified.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendations of the OCA. Respondent Reuel P. Ruiz was found guilty of improper solicitation and was dismissed from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (excluding accrued leave credits) and prejudice to re-employment in the government.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of improper solicitation: The Court held that respondent committed improper solicitation. Even if no amount was received, the mere demand for unauthorized fees is sufficient to establish liability for improper solicitation, citing Security and Sheriff Division, Sandiganbayan v. Gole. Respondent's explanation that the billing was merely a guide or based on a 'tolerated practice' was deemed insufficient and did not merit consideration. His failure to comply with rules designed to promote accountability undermined public faith in the judiciary and rendered him unfit for his position. The Court also noted that respondent's 24 years in service did not serve as a mitigating circumstance, as per Section 53 of the 2017 RACCS, especially since his length of service seemingly facilitated his knowledge of and reliance on the 'tolerated practice'. The Court concluded that respondent showed carelessness and indifference in performing his duties, offering no satisfactory reason for his actions. On the issue of billing for sheriff's fees: Respondent's Billing for Sheriff's Fee, demanding P5,000.00 per title for 98 titles, totaling P490,000.00, was found to have no legal basis. The OCA correctly pointed out that the fees collectible under A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 and Rule 141 are based on fixed amounts and rates, not on the sole discretion of the payor or on customary practices. The Court reiterated that sheriffs cannot unilaterally demand sums of money without observing proper procedural steps, as this amounts to dishonesty and extortion. Any amount received in violation of Section 10, Rule 141 constitutes unauthorized fees.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's demand for fees not authorized by law or without observing the proper procedural steps constitutes improper solicitation, which is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service, regardless of whether the amount was actually received.