RINA V. CHUA, COMPLAINANT, VS. EDGARDO D. NUESTRO, DEPUTY SHERIFF, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6, MANILA, RESPONDENT.

Complainant Rina V. Chua filed an
administrative charge against the respondent for allegedly delaying the
enforcement of the writ of execution in her favor after demanding and getting
from her the sum of P1,500.00.  Asked to comment thereon, the respondent
denied the charge.  The case was referred
for investigation, report and recommendation to Judge Bernardo P. Pardo of the Regional Trial Court of Manila who, after
hearing found as follows:

At the hearing, we find duly substantiated by the testimony of complainant
Rina Chua and her husband and counsel Atty. Virtoriano R. Yabut, Jr. that on
September 12, 1988 when the court in Civil Case No. 124401, issued a writ of
execution they asked respondent Deputy Sheriff Edgardo
D. Nuestro to immediately enforce the writ of
execution against the defendant and that for the purpose they agreed to give
P1,000.00 to the respondent aside from the expenses which might be necessary in
carrying out the said execution. 
Respondent received the amount of P1,000.00 on September 12, 1988; that
the next day, September 13, 1988 they saw the respondent talking with counsel
of defendant and that the respondent was hesitant in proceeding to carry out
the writ of execution and that as it was nearing lunch time, respondent even
asked for an additional amount of P500.00; consequently, in the afternoon of
the same day, respondent deputy sheriff went to the premises in question and
when he arrived there, he was told by the neighbors that there was a call from
the judge and that he returned the call to the judge who told him not to
proceed because a supersedeas bond was filed.  Nevertheless, he found the premises locked
and at the insistence of the complainant, they broke the padlock and he,
together with complainant and Atty. Yabut, entered portion
B of the premises, and that later counsel for defendant arrived and showed them
the Official Receipt of payment of the supersedeas
bond and so he discontinued the execution proceedings.

While we cannot fault the sheriff for his hesitance to immediately
carry out the writ of execution because the defendant still had time to file supersedeas bond to stay execution, we find duly proved by
preponderance of evidence that the respondent Deputy Sheriff Edgardo D. Nuestro received the
amount of P1,500.00 from the complainant and her
lawyer as a consideration for the performance of his work.  This amount is distinct from the sheriff’s
fee and expense of execution and was not intended for that purpose.  It was indeed a bribe given and received by
respondent deputy sheriff from the complainant.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, we find the respondent deputy sheriff Edgardo D. Nuestro guilty of
direct bribery for receiving an amount of P1,500.00 in
consideration of the execution of the writ of ejectment
against the defendant in Civil Case No. 124401 of the Metropolitan Trial Court
of Manila.

ACCORDINGLY, it is respectfully recommended that he be dismissed
from the service with forfeiture of retirement rights, if any.  It is also recommended that appropriate
directive be issued to the City Prosecutor of Manila after preliminary
investigation to charge complainant Rina Chua and
Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut,
Jr. with corruption of public official under Article 212 of the Revised Penal
Code.  Finally, it is recommended that
another directive be issued to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
to investigate Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut, Jr. for appropriate disciplinary measure for the
same act of corruption of public official.

Agreeing with the above findings and recommendation, the Court Resolved
to (a) DISMISS respondent Deputy Sheriff Edgardo D. Nuestro from the service with forfeiture of retirement
privileges, if any; (b) DIRECT the City Prosecutor of Manila to investigate
and, if warranted, charge complainant Rina V. Chua
and Atty Virtoriano R. Yabut with corruption of a public official under Art. 212
of the Revised Penal Code; and (c) REFER this matter to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines
for the investigation of Atty. Victorino R. Yabut on the same charge.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Paras and
Feliciano, JJ., on
leave.