BENJAMIN T. HOFER, COMPLAINANT, VS. TYRONE V. TAN, SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALAYBALAY CITY, BUKIDNON, RESPONDENT.

Hofer versus Tan

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by Benjamin T. Hofer against Tyrone V. Tan, Sheriff IV of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. The complainant, acting for the prevailing plaintiff in an ejectment case, charged the sheriff with failing to finish executing the judgment and with demanding and receiving money directly from him to carry out the writ. The case matters because it fixes, in the clearest terms, the only lawful procedure a sheriff may follow in collecting execution expenses, and it shows how a violation of that procedure is punished — not as a light infraction, but as grave misconduct and dishonesty.

Procedural History

The complaint began as an affidavit-complaint filed with the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City, Branch 9. The Executive Judge of that court indorsed the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator, which investigated and reported that the respondent had erred in personally receiving fifteen thousand pesos from the complainant, and recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter with a fine of twenty thousand pesos. The Supreme Court then ordered the re-docketing, required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case on the pleadings, and, when neither party complied, treated the matter as submitted for decision. The case therefore reached the Supreme Court as an original administrative proceeding, not as an appeal from any lower court ruling.

Facts

Paulito Hofer, the complainant's principal, sued the spouses Pansacala for ownership, payment of rentals, and recovery of possession. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Maramag, Bukidnon, decided in his favor, declaring him owner and ordering the spouses to vacate and return the property. A writ of execution was issued, and the respondent sheriff was tasked to enforce it and to make a return of the proceedings.

On the twenty-first of June, the sheriff went to serve the writ and learned that the spouses Pansacala had already moved away; he left a copy with their daughter-in-law. On the twenty-second of July, he returned and served the writ on three persons occupying the land as privies of the defendants. Because of bad weather and the presence of small children, he gave them three days to vacate. He then submitted a partial report dated the twenty-third of July, recommending that the plaintiff move for a writ of demolition and secure the presence of a surveyor.

The complainant then filed his affidavit-complaint, alleging that the sheriff had executed the decision, that he had asked for and received fifteen thousand pesos, and that he never returned to finish the work despite repeated demands. In his answer, the sheriff did not deny receiving the money; instead he set out an itemized list of expenses totalling fourteen thousand nine hundred pesos, covering vehicle hire, police honoraria, meals, and sheriff's fees. The Office of the Court Administrator found that he had personally received the amount without observing the procedure required by the Rules of Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent sheriff is liable for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his official duties.
• Whether or not the respondent sheriff is liable for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for demanding and receiving fifteen thousand pesos directly from the complainant to implement the writ of execution.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator is the correct penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 10 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court provides:

With regard to sheriff's expenses in executing writs issued pursuant to court orders or decisions or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guard's fees, warehousing and similar charges, the interested party shall pay said expenses in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process, subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process. The liquidation shall be approved by the court. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party making the deposit. A full report shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, and the sheriff's expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor.

This is the provision the respondent ignored, because it requires an estimate, court approval, deposit with the clerk of court, and liquidation — none of which he followed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found the respondent not liable. In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations by substantial evidence, which means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The complainant offered only the bare allegation that the sheriff did not return despite demands; he did not show when the writ was received, when the return was due, or when the demands were made. The sheriff, on the other hand, showed that he served the writ, ordered the privies to vacate, verified their compliance, and submitted both a partial and an amended partial report.

On the second issue, the Court found him liable. The Court laid out the steps Section 10 requires: the sheriff must first prepare an estimate of expenses and seek the court's approval; the interested party then deposits the amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff; the clerk disburses it to the executing sheriff; the sheriff liquidates within the period for rendering his return; and any unspent amount is refunded. The Court held that a sheriff can only accept payment of sheriff's fees as provided in Section 10, and that acceptance of any other amount is improper even if applied to lawful purposes. Good faith is no defense, and neither is the reasonableness of the amount, nor the acquiescence of the complainant. Any amount received in excess of the lawful fees is an unlawful exaction, rendering the sheriff liable for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

On the third issue, the Court held the recommended fine too light. Dishonesty and grave misconduct are grave offenses punishable by dismissal for the first offense, and dismissal carries cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service. No mitigating circumstance was invoked or found, and the respondent was not a first-time offender, having previously been suspended in another case and having another administrative case pending.

Doctrine

A sheriff may receive only the sheriff's fees allowed under Section 10 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. He must first estimate the expenses and obtain the court's approval, the interested party must deposit the amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, the clerk disburses it to the executing sheriff, and the sheriff liquidates it within the period for rendering his return, with any unspent amount refunded. Any amount received beyond the lawful fees is an unlawful exaction, and it renders the sheriff liable for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Good faith, the reasonableness of the amount, and the consent of the paying party are not defenses.

Disposition

The Court found Sheriff Tyrone V. Tan guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and dismissed him from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a sheriff who demands and receives money from a litigant without the court's prior approval commits an unlawful exaction, and good faith is no defense. Examiners use this case to test the Section 10, Rule 141 procedure for execution expenses and to test the penalty for grave misconduct and dishonesty by a court employee.