MILAGROS A. LOPEZ, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT VICTOR A. LOPEZ, COMPLAINANTS, VS. NICOLAS C. RAMOS, SHERIFF IV, RTC-BR. 126, CALOOCAN CITY, RESPONDENT.

Lopez versus Ramos

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Milagros Lopez, represented by her attorney-in-fact Victor Lopez, against Nicolas Ramos, Sheriff IV of Branch 126 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. The complainants accuse the sheriff of misconduct in the enforcement of a writ of execution issued in their favor in a civil case for a money judgment. The case matters because it fixes, in plain and enforceable terms, the procedure a sheriff must follow before he may touch a single peso of a litigant's money, and it measures the penalty for ignoring that procedure.

Procedural History

The matter began with an order of the trial judge of Branch 126 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, who directed that the allegations against his branch sheriff be furnished to the Office of the Court Administrator. The Office of the Court Administrator referred the matter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City for investigation, report, and recommendation. A formal complaint was then filed before the Office of the Executive Judge. After investigation, the Executive Judge found the demand for money unsubstantiated but found that the sheriff had failed to observe the rules on collecting, receipting, disbursing, and liquidating sheriff's expenses, and recommended a reprimand with dismissal of the complaint. The Office of the Court Administrator agreed with the findings but recommended suspension for one month. The Court, treating the recommendations as too light, imposed a heavier penalty.

Facts

The complainants held a money judgment in a civil case and a writ of execution was issued in their favor. Sometime in the first week of July 2001, the complainants' representative gave the sheriff one thousand pesos. On the tenth of July 2001, a further six hundred pesos changed hands. The complainants alleged that the sheriff had demanded five thousand pesos for his services, and that when the elderly and unemployed Milagros Lopez could not raise that amount, he lost interest in fully satisfying the writ. They offered, as a counter-proposal, one half of the money judgment upon complete enforcement. The sheriff denied the demand and the counter-offer, insisting that no sheriff in his right mind would demand something illegal in the presence of witnesses and in full view of the party's lawyer.

The sheriff admitted receiving one thousand pesos, but said it was handed to him near the property subject of the writ, not at his workplace. He issued only a handwritten receipt for that amount, describing it as being for sheriff's expenses for enforcement of the writ, including gas, photocopying, payments of the writs of execution, film, battery, and developing.

The Executive Judge found that, apart from the bare allegation of the complainants' liaison officer, no witness supported the demand for five thousand pesos, that nothing showed the sheriff agreed to the fifty percent proposal, and that the claim he lost interest in the writ was disproved by the records. But the Executive Judge found that he had failed to observe the rules on the collection, receipt, disbursement, and liquidation of sheriff's expenses. The Office of the Court Administrator adopted these findings.

Issues

• Whether or not the sheriff is liable for misconduct for failing to observe the procedure prescribed by the Rules of Court in collecting, receipting, disbursing, and liquidating sheriff's expenses in the implementation of a writ of execution.
• Whether or not the penalties of reprimand and suspension for one month recommended by the Executive Judge and the Office of the Court Administrator are proportionate to the violation committed.

Applicable Provisions

The second paragraph of Section 9 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court 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 travel, guard's 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 the 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 is the provision the sheriff violated: it channels every collection through an estimate, court approval, deposit with the clerk of court, disbursement, and liquidation, and it forbids the sheriff from simply taking money from a party.

Section 113, Article III, Chapter V of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual provides:

That no payment of any nature shall be received by a collecting officer without immediately issuing an official receipt in acknowledgment thereof.

This is the provision violated by the sheriff's issuance of a mere handwritten receipt for the one thousand pesos.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a sheriff is not precluded from collecting additional sums from a requesting party, but he is mandated to follow five steps: first, to make an estimate of the expenses to be incurred; second, to obtain court approval for such estimated expenses; third, the approved amount shall be deposited by the interested party with the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff; fourth, the Clerk of Court shall disburse the amount to the executing sheriff; and fifth, the executing sheriff shall liquidate his expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the writ. The sheriff ignored these steps. Nothing on record showed that he made an estimate or obtained court approval; what appeared was that he asked for and received one thousand pesos and issued only a handwritten receipt. The Court held that his unilateral demand for money without court approval and without any accounting constituted dishonesty and extortion, and that his issuance of a handwritten receipt violated the National Accounting and Auditing Manual.

On the second issue, the Court held that the recommended penalties of reprimand and suspension for one month were too light. Sheriffs are front-line representatives of the justice system, duty-bound to know at least the basic rules on implementing writs, and their conduct must be geared toward maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court. The Court found that the actuations called for a more severe penalty and imposed suspension for three months without pay, with a stern warning.

Doctrine

A sheriff executing a writ may collect additional sums from a requesting party, but only through the procedure fixed by the second paragraph of Section 9 of Rule 141: estimate, court approval, deposit with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, disbursement to the executing sheriff, and liquidation within the period for rendering a return, with any unspent amount refunded. A sheriff who unilaterally demands and receives money from a litigant, without court approval and without accounting, commits dishonesty and extortion. A collecting officer who receives any payment without immediately issuing an official receipt violates Section 113, Article III, Chapter V of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual. Sheriffs are bound to discharge their duties with prudence, caution, and attention, for upon them depends the execution of a final judgment, and their misconduct erodes the people's faith in the judiciary.

Disposition

The Court found Sheriff Nicolas Ramos guilty and suspended him for three months without pay, with a stern warning that any further infraction of the Rules of Court shall be dealt with severely.

Remember This

Memorize the five steps: estimate, approval, deposit with the clerk of court, disbursement, and liquidation. Examiners use this case to test the procedure for sheriff's expenses under Rule 141 and the penalty for a sheriff who collects money from a litigant without following it.