BRYAN T. MALABANAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. REUEL P. RUIZ, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 84, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.

Malabanan versus Ruiz

The Case

This is an administrative case for grave misconduct and violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, filed by Bryan T. Malabanan, Paralegal Officer of UCPB Savings Bank, against Reuel P. Ruiz, Sheriff IV of Branch 84 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan. The complaint arose from a Billing for Sheriff's Fee that the sheriff handed to the bank after an extrajudicial foreclosure auction sale. The case matters because it fixes the rule that a sheriff's fees are governed strictly by Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, and that a demand for any other amount, even one dressed up as a mere guide or as a tolerated practice among banks, is improper solicitation punishable by dismissal.

Procedural History

The complainant filed an Affidavit-Complaint dated May 18, 2018 directly before the Office of the Court Administrator, which is the proper course for administrative complaints against court personnel. The respondent filed his Comment dated August 9, 2018, admitting that he issued the billing but insisting it was only a guide for the bank in estimating the amount to be paid. In its Memorandum dated August 19, 2020, the Office of the Court Administrator found him guilty of soliciting money in violation of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, and recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that he be dismissed from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in the government. The case then reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court resolved it in a per curiam decision promulgated in March 2021.

Facts

On February 22, 2018, the complainant, acting for UCPB Savings Bank, filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan, against the properties of Francisco Allarilla and his family, covered by ninety-eight titles. The petition was raffled to the respondent sheriff for the conduct of the auction sale.

On April 12, 2018, the auction sale proceeded and the bank was declared the highest bidder. The respondent then gave the complainant a Billing for Sheriff's Fee, itemizing ninety-eight titles at five thousand pesos per title, or a total of four hundred ninety thousand pesos, with a note that the amount was based on the prevailing amount being paid by any petitioner.

The complainant protested that the amount was unconscionable and had no basis and no approval from the court as required by Rule 141. In his defense, the respondent admitted issuing the billing but claimed it was only a guide, that the fee was supposed to depend on the bank's discretion as practiced, that most banks pay such amounts, that the complaint was premature, and that he had received nothing because the billing had not been approved.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent committed improper solicitation in violation of Section 50(A)(10) of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
• Whether or not the respondent's claim that he received no money, and that the billing was merely a guide or a tolerated practice, exempts him from administrative liability.
• Whether or not the respondent's twenty-four years in the service may be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.

Applicable Provisions

Section 10 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Section 10. Sheriffs, Process Servers, and other persons serving processes. x x x x 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 tor each kilometer of travel, guards' 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 tor 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 that fixes the fees a sheriff may collect and requires prior approval of the court, which the respondent failed to secure.

Section 50(A)(10) of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

10. Soliciting or accepting directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value in the course of one's official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of one's office. The propriety or impropriety of the foregoing shall be determined by its value, kinship, or relationship between giver and receiver and the motivation. A thing of monetary value is one which is evidently or manifestly excessive by its very nature;

This is the offense charged and the provision under which the penalty of dismissal is imposed.

Section 7(d) of Republic Act No. 6713 provides:

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful: x x x x (d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. - Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office.

This confirms that solicitation is a prohibited act for public officials and employees.

Section 53 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

Section 53. Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances. Except for offenses punishable by dismissal from the service, the following may be appreciated as either mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the determination of the penalties to be imposed. x x x x

This forecloses any mitigating circumstance, including length of service, where the offense is punishable by dismissal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent committed improper solicitation. A sheriff is expected to know the rules governing his functions, and Section 10 of Rule 141 specifies the fees he may collect. The Court stressed that these fees can never be based on the sole discretion of the payor, nor on the customary practice of banks paying a fixed fee per title. A sheriff cannot unilaterally demand sums of money without observing the proper procedural steps, and any amount received in violation of Section 10 constitutes unauthorized fees. Even if the party were amenable or the money given voluntarily, the failure to secure the court's prior approval would not absolve the sheriff.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent's defenses fail. Mere demand is already sufficient to constitute improper solicitation; receipt of the money is not necessary. The claim that the billing was only a guide was rejected because the billing was complete in its details and the amount could easily be computed. The Court also held that a tolerated practice cannot ripen into a legal act since it is not sanctioned by any law.

On the third issue, the Court held that the respondent's twenty-four years in the service cannot be considered mitigating, because the offense is punishable by dismissal and Section 53 forbids appreciation of mitigating circumstances in such cases. The Court added that it was his length of service that helped him commit the offense.

Doctrine

A sheriff may collect only the fees fixed under Section 10 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, and expenses must be estimated by the sheriff subject to the approval of the court. Any demand for a different amount, whether labeled a guide, a suggestion, or a tolerated practice, is improper solicitation under Section 50(A)(10) of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. Mere demand is sufficient; receipt of the money is not required. A customary practice not sanctioned by law cannot ripen into a legal act. Length of service cannot be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance where the offense is punishable by dismissal.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of improper solicitation and dismissed him from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that mere demand is sufficient for improper solicitation, and a sheriff's fees are only those fixed by Rule 141 with court approval. Examiners use this case to test the strict rules on sheriff's fees and the rule that a tolerated practice cannot ripen into a legal act.