CORAZON IMPERIAL, COMPLAINANT, VS. JESUS B. BASILLA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, LEGASPI CITY, RESPONDENT.

Imperial versus Basilla

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed directly with the Supreme Court against Jesus Basilla, a Sheriff IV assigned to the Regional Trial Court in Legaspi City. The complainant, Corazon Imperial, was the prevailing plaintiff in a civil case for foreclosure of real estate mortgage, and she accused the sheriff of dishonesty, misrepresentation, and conduct unbecoming a court employee. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct for sheriffs in executing money judgments: a sheriff may not, even out of kindness to a relative, accept installment payments from a judgment debtor or induce a judgment creditor to sign a receipt for money not actually received. It is a compact illustration of how the Court polices the front line of the justice system.

Procedural History

The complaint was sworn on September 2, 2003 and treated as an administrative matter against a court employee. The Office of the Court Administrator reviewed the records and issued a Report dated May 7, 2004, finding that the respondent had contributed to the delay of the execution by allowing payment in installments without fixed dates. The Office recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that the respondent be reprimanded for failing to comply with the strict standards required of public officers. The case then came before the Supreme Court as an administrative proceeding, and the Court rendered its decision on July 30, 2004.

Facts

Corazon Imperial was the plaintiff in a civil case for foreclosure of real estate mortgage, and on November 23, 1995 the trial court rendered judgment in her favor. On December 20, 2002, the respondent sheriff called her and told her to come to his house in Legaspi City to receive the amount of 178,000 pesos representing the monetary award, plus 20,000 pesos as attorney's fees. She went, and Sheriff Geminiano Aringo, Jr. was present. The respondent told her he would pay the obligation on behalf of his brother-in-law, Atty. Romulo Ricafort, the lawyer of the defendant.

The respondent then tendered only 50,000 pesos but asked the complainant to sign an acknowledgment receipt stating that she had received the total amount of 178,000 pesos. She signed because the respondent promised to pay the balance in January 2003. He later paid only an additional 15,000 pesos and then failed and refused to pay the remaining balance of 133,000 pesos. She was constrained to ask the court for assistance, and the presiding judge issued an alias writ of execution in her favor.

The respondent denied the material allegations. He claimed he was merely helping his brother-in-law settle an obligation already arranged with the complainant, that he gave the 50,000 pesos in the presence of Sheriff Aringo, that the preparation of the acknowledgment receipt was the complainant's idea, and that future payments were to be recorded until the total was collected. He insisted there was no connivance and that all the transactions were above board.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent sheriff is administratively liable for dishonesty, misrepresentation, and conduct unbecoming a court employee for accepting installment payments and having the complainant sign a receipt for the full amount when only part had been paid.
• Whether or not the respondent's conduct, though motivated by aid to a relative, violated the strict standards required of sheriffs in the execution of money judgments.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, as cited in the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, provides:

When the judgment is for money, the executing sheriff or officer shall demand from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution. The amount to be demanded and paid shall also include all lawful fees.

This provision bears directly on the case because the respondent, by accepting installment payments without fixed dates, failed to demand the immediate payment of the full amount as the Rule requires.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the respondent administratively liable. It agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that when the respondent obligated himself to settle the obligation on behalf of his brother-in-law, he contributed to the delay of the execution by paying in installments and without defining specific dates of payment, to the disadvantage of the judgment creditor. The Court stressed that a sheriff performs a very sensitive function in the dispensation of justice, is duty-bound to know the basic rules on the implementation of writs of execution, and must at all times show a high degree of professionalism. The sheriff is the front-line representative of the justice system, and if he loses the trust reposed in him, he inevitably diminishes the faith of the people in the judiciary.

On the second issue, the Court acknowledged that coming to the aid of a distressed relative is admirable, but held that the respondent should not have done so at the expense of the legal processes. When such aid frustrates and betrays the public trust in the judicial system, it cannot and should not remain unchecked, for the interests of the individual must give way to the accommodation of the public. The image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work there, from the judge to the lowest employee, and the Court will not tolerate any conduct of judicial agents or employees which tends to or actually diminishes the faith of the people in the judiciary.

Doctrine

A sheriff is the front-line representative of the justice system and is duty-bound to know the basic rules relative to the implementation of writs of execution, showing a high degree of professionalism at all times. Under Section 9 of Rule 39, when the judgment is for money, the executing sheriff shall demand from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ, including all lawful fees; he may not accept installment payments or induce the judgment creditor to sign a receipt for the full amount when only part has been paid. A sheriff's personal kindness to a relative who is a judgment debtor cannot excuse conduct that delays execution and betrays public trust, because the interests of the individual must give way to the accommodation of the public.

Disposition

The Court reprimanded Sheriff Jesus Basilla, directed him to be more circumspect in his dealings with the public, and sternly warned him that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that a sheriff is the front-line representative of the justice system, and his personal kindness to a relative cannot be allowed to frustrate the execution of a money judgment. Examiners use this case to test the standard of conduct of sheriffs under Section 9 of Rule 39 and the principle that public interest prevails over private accommodation in the execution of writs.