EULOGIO B. GUEVARRA, COMPLAINANT, VS. VICENTE S. SICAT, JR., SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ANGELES CITY, RESPONDENT.

Guevarra versus Sicat

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Eulogio Guevarra against Vicente Sicat, Junior, Sheriff Four of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City. Guevarra charges the sheriff with neglect of duty and inefficiency for failing to implement a writ of execution and an order of demolition in an ejectment case, and for demanding and receiving money from him as sheriff's expenses without observing the procedure required by the Rules of Court. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct for sheriffs in executing judgments and clarifies the proper procedure for collecting sheriff's expenses.

Procedural History

The complainant was the plaintiff in an ejectment case decided in his favor by the Municipal Trial Court. After the decision became final and executory, a writ of execution was issued, and later an order of demolition. When the sheriff failed to carry these out, the complainant filed this administrative complaint directly with the Supreme Court. The Court Administrator, in his report and recommendation, found the respondent guilty of neglect in the performance of his duty and recommended a fine of 5,000 pesos with a warning. By a resolution of the Court, both parties manifested that they were submitting the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings and records already filed. The case is thus an original administrative action resolved by the Supreme Court itself.

Facts

Eulogio Guevarra won an ejectment case against Ross Chessman and Teodoro Baul and his wife before the Municipal Trial Court. When the decision became final and executory, a writ of execution was issued. In implementing it, the respondent sheriff gave the defendants ten days to vacate the premises, but they refused. Eventually the Municipal Trial Court issued an order of demolition.

The complainant alleged that on several dates the respondent demanded and received from him sums intended for sheriff's expenses: 700 pesos in November 1997, 1,000 pesos in July 1998, 5,000 pesos in September 1998, and 3,000 pesos in November 1998. The last two amounts were covered by receipts. Despite the lapse of time and repeated requests, the respondent never implemented the writ of execution and the order of demolition.

In his comment, the respondent denied the charges. He contended that he received only 8,000 pesos, for which he issued receipts, and that he gave this amount to the persons he hired to assist in the demolition. The demolition did not push through because the defendants placed barbed wire around the premises and threatened those persons. Two of them executed a joint affidavit stating that they were willing to return the money to the complainant.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent sheriff is guilty of neglect of duty and inefficiency for failing to implement the writ of execution and the order of demolition.
• Whether or not the respondent sheriff is liable for misconduct for demanding and receiving money from the complainant as sheriff's expenses without observing the procedure required by the Rules of Court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9 of Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court governs the collection of sheriff's expenses and provides:

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-oficio 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.

This provision bears on the case because the respondent demanded and received money directly from the complainant, bypassing the required estimate, court approval, deposit with the clerk of court, and liquidation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the respondent guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. His excuse that the defendants placed barbed wire and threatened resistance was flimsy. He could have sought the intervention of police authorities or barangay officials to accomplish the task mandated by the court.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent violated Section 9 of Rule 141. Before an interested party pays the sheriff's expenses, the sheriff must first estimate the amount for approval by the court. Upon approval, the party deposits the amount with the clerk of court and ex-oficio sheriff, who disburses it to the sheriff assigned to execute the writ, subject to liquidation, with any unspent amount refunded and a full report rendered. The respondent simply demanded and received money without informing the complainant of the estimated expenses, without securing court approval, and without advising him that the expenses should be deposited with the clerk of court. The Court, however, found no showing that he was motivated by intent to gain, since the persons he hired were willing to return the amount and the complainant himself charged only negligence. His act thus made him liable for simple misconduct.

Doctrine

A sheriff must discharge his duties with due care and utmost diligence, acting with reasonable celerity and promptness, because if judgments are not enforced, decisions become empty victories of prevailing parties. A sheriff who fails to implement a writ of execution and an order of demolition, without seeking the intervention of police or barangay authorities against resistance, is guilty of inefficiency and incompetence. A sheriff who demands and receives sheriff's expenses directly from a litigant, without the estimate, court approval, deposit with the clerk of court, and liquidation required by Section 9 of Rule 141, is guilty of simple misconduct.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of simple misconduct and inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, suspended him for one month without pay and other fringe benefits including leave credits, and fined him 10,000 pesos, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that sheriffs must act with reasonable celerity and promptness, and that sheriff's expenses must follow the estimate, approval, deposit, and liquidation procedure under Section 9 of Rule 141. Examiners use this case to test the administrative liability of sheriffs for neglect of duty and for improperly collecting execution expenses.