Sundiang v. Bacho
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs spouses Rene and Nenita Castañeda filed an accion publiciana against defendants Pedro and Rosie Galacan, et al., for depriving them of the use and possession of a parcel of land. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to vacate the property, pay damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for review. Procedural History: A Writ of Execution was issued by the RTC, but the defendants refused to vacate. Consequently, a Writ of Demolition was issued. The complainant alleged that the respondent sheriff, Erlito DS. Bacho, demanded and received P150,000.00 in installments (P60,000.00, P50,000.00, and P40,000.00) for the implementation of the writ. Despite receiving the money, the sheriff failed to place the plaintiffs in possession as structures hindered ingress and egress. The Petition: The complainant filed an administrative case against the respondent sheriff for extortion, neglect of duty, and violation of Republic Act No. 3019. The case was referred to the Executive Judge of the RTC, Caloocan City, for investigation. The Investigating Judge recommended dismissal for want of evidence. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the respondent be found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and be suspended for one year.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent sheriff Erlito DS. Bacho is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for failing to comply with the procedures in Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court regarding the expenses for the execution of a writ of demolition. Whether the penalty of suspension for one (1) year recommended by the OCA is appropriate.
Ruling
The Court found respondent sheriff Erlito DS. Bacho guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. He was meted the penalty of suspension from service, without pay, for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day. He was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that respondent sheriff Erlito DS. Bacho is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for violating Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. This rule mandates that before a sheriff incurs expenses for executing a writ, an estimate must be prepared, submitted to the court for approval, and the interested party must deposit the approved amount with the clerk of court. The sheriff must then disburse the funds, liquidate the expenses, and submit a report. In this case, the respondent sheriff failed to follow these procedures. He did not prepare an estimate, seek court approval, deposit funds with the clerk of court, or submit a liquidation report. Instead, he demanded and received sums of money directly from the complainant without adhering to the prescribed legal steps. The Court emphasized that sheriffs are not allowed to receive voluntary payments from parties without following proper procedures, and any amount received in excess of lawful fees constitutes an unlawful exaction, rendering them liable for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The respondent's claim that the money was used for laborers and security, and that the task of removing structures outside the property was the local government's duty, did not absolve him from the procedural violations. On Issue 2: While the OCA recommended a penalty of one year suspension, the Court deemed it appropriate to impose a penalty of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day. This penalty falls within the range prescribed for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, which is classified as a grave offense. The Court considered the circumstances surrounding the case and prevailing jurisprudence on first-time offenders of this nature in imposing a penalty less than the maximum recommended by the OCA. The Court also issued a stern warning against future repetitions of similar acts.
Main Doctrine
Sheriffs are strictly mandated to follow Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court when implementing writs that involve expenses. This includes preparing an estimate of expenses, securing court approval for such estimates, having the interested party deposit the approved amount with the clerk of court, and submitting a liquidation report. Failure to comply with these procedural steps, such as demanding and receiving money directly from a party without court approval and proper accounting, renders the sheriff administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.