A.M. No. P-99-1317. August 01, 2000
ARMANDO M. CANLAS AND RUBY C. DUNGCA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. SHERIFF CLAUDE B. BALASBAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ANGELES CITY (BRANCH 59), RESPONDENT.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
sheriff’s estimate of expenses in the execution of a writ should be
approved by the judge. The approved estimated amount shall be deposited
with the clerk of court who, as ex officio sheriff, shall then disburse
the same to the assigned sheriff. Hence, a sheriff who receives from the
parties an amount that is not included in the approved estimate and is
not deposited with the clerk of court is guilty of violating the said
provision.
The Case
Armando M.
Canlas and Ruby C. Dungca filed a sworn Complaint[1] dated January 18, 1998, accusing Sheriff
Claude B. Balasbas, Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, of gross
misconduct and dereliction of duty in connection with the execution of
two Writs of Attachments.
On May 6, 1998, Court Administrator
Alfredo L. Benipayo directed respondent to file a comment. In his May
28, 1998 Comment,[2]
respondent denied any wrongdoing.
Subsequently, the Court
referred the case to Executive Judge Eliezer Delos Santos for
investigation, report and recommendation.
The
Facts
In his Report/Recommendation dated August 27,
1999, the investigating judge made the following factual findings:[3]
“On June
30 and July 18, 1998, Branch 61 of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles
City issued two writs of attachment in Civil Cases Nos. 8651 and 8659
respectively. Both writs of attachment were assigned to respondent
Sheriff Claude Balasbas for implementation.In compliance with
the Writ of Attachment issued in Civil Case No. 8651, respondent levied
on attachment real and personal properties of the defendant on July 1
and July 3, 1997 as follows:1) Levy on attachment
over a parcel of land in Angeles City (Exh. ‘C’ and Exh. ‘3’)2) Levy on attachment over a parcel of land in Mabalacat, Pampanga (Exh.
‘D’ and Exh. ‘4’)3) Levy on attachment over two motor
vehicles (Exh. ‘B’ and Exh. ‘2’)4) Garnishment of deposits
with the Landbank of the Philippines, Angeles City branch (Exh. ‘E’ and
Exh. ‘E-1’ and Exh. ‘5’ and ‘5-a’)A Sheriff Report
dated July 7, 1997 (Exh. ‘F’ and Exh. ‘6’) was accordingly submitted in
Court.In compliance with the Writ of Attachment issued on July
18, 1997 in Civil Case No. 8659, respondent sheriff levied on
attachment the real properties of the defendant located at Angeles City
(Exh. ‘T’ and Exh. ‘9’) and over a parcel of land in Mabalacat, Pampanga
(Exh. ‘5’ and Exh. ’10’) on July 18 and 22, 1997 (Exh. ‘K’ and Exh.
’11’) respectively.A Sheriff Report was accordingly submitted
in court to show compliance with the said Writ.It is the
contention of complainant Armando Canlas that before implementing the
writ, respondent Sheriff told them that he needed at least P2,000.00 for
his gasoline allowance. The said amount was given by the complainant
personally to the respondent in front of Mr. Rubio, complainant’s
neighbor and respondent’s kumpadre. On July 2, 1997, respondent Sheriff
again allegedly asked for an additional amount of P3,000.00 as sheriff’s
fee thru Mr. Rubio who in turn allegedly gave the amount to the
respondent.On the other hand, complainant Ruby Dungca alleges
that respondent originally asked from her a sheriff’s fee of P5,000.00
but the said amount was later reduced to P2,500 upon her request, Later
respondent thru Mr. Rubio asked for an additional amount of P5,000.00
which she gave to Mr. Rubio. Mr. Rubio testified that he gave the said
amount to the respondent.Both complainants aver that although
they were able to pinpoint to Sheriff Balasbas the whereabouts of the
two cars owned by defendant Dolores Cruz, the latter failed to take
possession of them. Hence on July 6, 1997, they decided to see
respondent to inquire from him about the development of the case,
specifically regarding the two aforementioned cars. The respondent told
them that he already had talked to Mrs. Marie Balboa Gomez, a sister of
defendant Dolores Cruz, who promised to surrender the cars the following
week. On July 12, 1997, complainants again went to respondent’s house
to inform him where the cars could be found but the latter replied that
the necessary papers were not with him at that time as he had left them
at his desk in the office. On July 26, 1997, complainant Armando Canlas
looked for the cars and found the Mitsubishi Galant car in the
possession of Mr. Bon Jovi Maniti. He hurriedly went to respondent’s
house and relayed the information to him only to be informed by the
latter that the papers were at his office.Respondent stressed
that at the very outset he had faithfully complied with the directives
embodied in the Writ of Attachment dated 30 June 1997 (Exhibit ‘A’ and
Exhibit ‘1’) issued in Civil Case No. 8651. The Writ of Attachment was
issued for complainant Canlas’ claim of P350,000.00.In like
manner, he alleged that he faithfully complied with the directives in
the Writ of Attachment dated 18 July 1997 (Exhibit ‘H’ and Exhibit ‘8’)
issued in Civil Case No.8659. Respondent with dispatch levied on real
properties belonging to the defendant.Respondent admitted that
he received P2,000.00 from Armando Canlas but denied that he asked
[for] and received an additional P3,000.00. He averred that he used the
P2,000.00 for the levy on attachment and the remainder he used as his
gasoline expenses and for food as he used his own car and Homer Rubio
was always with him. He denied receiving P2,500.00 from Ruby Dungca and
later demanded and received an additional P500.00. He however admitted
that he received P1,500.00 from Mrs. Dungca when the latter went to his
office. He used the money given to him by Dungca to have her claims
annotated on the title of Dolores Cruz’s property.He denied
the allegations of Armando Canlas insofar as the two vehicles of Dolores
Cruz [were] concerned. He alleged that he was ready to take possession
of the said two vehicles whenever and wherever he [would] find them. He
just found difficulty locating them. In order to protect the interest of
the complainant, he had the levy [i]n the latter’s favor annotated on
the registration papers of the two vehicles.”
Recommendation of the Investigating Judge
The investigating judge found that respondent violated Section 9
of Rule 141 because he had accepted sums of money from complainants
purportedly to cover his expenses in the execution of the Writs of
Attachment. Hence, he recommended that respondent be found guilty of
serious misconduct and fined in the amount of P5,000.
The Court’s Ruling
We agree with
the findings and the recommendation of the investigating judge.
Liability of Respondent Sheriff
Respondent’s duty in the present case is prescribed in Section 9 of
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which states:“SEC. 9. Sheriff,
and other persons serving processes.xxx xxx
xxx(c) For executing a writ of attachment against the property
of defendant, fifty (P50.00) pesos;xxx xxx
xxx(g) For executing a writ of process to place a party in
possession of real estate, one hundred (P100.00) pesos;xxx xxx xxx
(k) For issuing a notice of
garnishment, for each notice, twenty (P20.00) pesos;(l) For
money collected by him by order, execution, attachment, or any other
process, judicial or extrajudicial, the following sums, to wit:1. On the first four thousand P4,000.00 pesos, four (4%) per centum.
2. On all sums in excess of four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos two (2%)
per centum.“In addition to the fees hereinabove
fixed, the party requesting the process of any court, preliminary,
incidental, or final, shall pay the sheriff’s expenses in serving or
executing the process, or safeguarding the property levied upon,
attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel,
guards’ fees, warehousing and similar charges, 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. 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.”
The foregoing
provision requires that the sheriff’s estimate of the expenses to be
incurred in the execution of a writ should be approved by the judge. It
further directs that the approved estimate be deposited with the clerk
of court and ex oficio sheriff, who shall then disburse the same to the
sheriff assigned to implement the writ. Moreover, any unspent amount
shall then be refunded to the party making the deposit.[4]
In this case, respondent
admits that he did in fact ask for and receive P2,000 from Canlas and
P1,500 from Dungca for gasoline and other expenses necessary to
implement the two Writs of Attachment. The amount was not part of the
approved estimate of expenses and was not deposited with the clerk of
court, but came directly from complainants for the use of respondent.
Clearly, respondent sheriff violated the aforecited provision.
The following pronouncement of the Court in Ong v. Meregildo[5] is appropriate in this case:
“Respondent [sheriff] failed grievously to comply with the above
requirements of Section 9. Respondent knew, or should have known, that
he had to present his cost estimates for implementation of the Writ of
Demolition and Possession to the court issuing the Writ for its
approval. He did not do so. Respondent Sheriff repeatedly charged and
collected from complainant sums of money without approval of the Court.
He did not deposit the sums received from complainant with the Clerk of
Court who, under Section 9, was then authorized to disburse the same to
respondent Sheriff to effect implementation of the writ. x x x.”
That the said amounts were given to respondent voluntarily did not make
the misconduct less reprehensible. It has been held that sheriffs
cannot receive gratuities or voluntary payments from parties they are
ordered to assist in the course of their duties.[6]
Once again we stress that high
standards are expected of sheriffs, who play an important role in the
administration of justice. As we explained in Vda. de Abellera v.
Dalisay:[7]
“At the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy
sheriffs are indispensably in close contact with the litigants, hence,
their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and
integrity of the court, for the image of a court of justice is
necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men
and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of
its personnel; hence, it becomes the imperative sacred duty of each and
everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a temple
of justice.”
WHEREFORE, respondent sheriff is
hereby found GUILTY of serious misconduct and
FINED P5,000 with a stern warning that a repetition of
the same or a similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes,
JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 4-7.
[3]
Report/Recommendation, pp. 1-4.
[4] Vda. De Gillego v. Roxas, 235 SCRA 158, August
5, 1994.
[5] 233 SCRA
632, July 5, 1994, per curiam.
[6] Casal v. Concepcion Jr., 243 SCRA 369, 373,
April 6, 1995.
[7]
268 SCRA 64, 67, February 12, 1997, per Melo, J.