This case underscores the strict adherence required of sheriffs in handling expenses related to court-ordered actions. The Supreme Court found Sheriff Erlito DS. Bacho guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for failing to comply with procedural rules regarding the handling of expenses for a writ of demolition. This ruling reinforces the importance of transparency and accountability among public officials, particularly in the execution of court orders, to maintain public trust and prevent any appearance of impropriety.

Unapproved Fees: When a Sheriff’s Demand Leads to Disciplinary Action

The case originated from a complaint filed by Atty. Marcos R. Sundiang against Sheriff Erlito DS. Bacho, accusing him of extortion, neglect of duty, and violation of Republic Act No. 3019. The accusation stemmed from the implementation of a writ of demolition following a court decision in favor of Atty. Sundiang’s clients. The central issue revolved around whether Sheriff Bacho violated established procedures in handling the funds required for the execution of the writ, specifically regarding the need for court approval and proper documentation of expenses.

The factual backdrop involved a long-standing property dispute that reached the Supreme Court. After a final judgment was obtained, a writ of execution and subsequent writ of demolition were issued. According to Atty. Sundiang, Sheriff Bacho demanded and received a total of P150,000.00 for the implementation of the writ but failed to fully carry out the demolition. Sheriff Bacho countered that he received only P60,000.00, which he used to pay laborers and security personnel, denying any personal benefit or extortion. He asserted that the demolition was completed and the property turned over to the plaintiffs, although subsequent re-entry by the defendants complicated matters.

The Supreme Court focused on whether Sheriff Bacho adhered to Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which governs the handling of sheriff’s expenses. This rule clearly outlines the procedure for estimating, approving, and disbursing funds for executing court orders. Specifically, the rule states:

Sec. 10. Sheriffs, process servers and other persons serving processes.

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 for 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 with the same period for 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.

The Court emphasized that a sheriff must first estimate the expenses, obtain court approval, and ensure the funds are deposited with the clerk of court. Furthermore, a proper accounting and liquidation of the expenses are required. The Court noted that the failure to comply with these procedures makes a sheriff administratively liable.

The Court found that Sheriff Bacho did not follow any of the required procedures. He failed to submit an estimate to the court for approval, directly demanded and received money from the complainant, and did not advise the complainant to deposit the funds with the clerk of court. Moreover, he did not submit any liquidation report to the court. The Supreme Court cited previous rulings to support its decision, highlighting that sheriffs are not allowed to receive voluntary payments without adhering to proper procedural steps.

The implications of this decision are significant for both court personnel and the public. Sheriffs must strictly adhere to the rules regarding the handling of funds to avoid administrative liability and maintain public trust. Litigants are also reminded to be vigilant and ensure that sheriffs comply with the required procedures when requesting funds for the implementation of court orders. This ruling serves as a reminder that any deviation from established procedures can lead to serious consequences for the erring officer.

The Court then determined the appropriate penalty. While conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is classified as a grave offense under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the Court considered the circumstances of the case and jurisprudence related to first-time offenders. The Court ultimately imposed a suspension of six months and one day, rather than the maximum penalty of one year recommended by the OCA. The sheriff was also sternly warned against any repetition of similar acts.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Sheriff Bacho violated the prescribed procedures for handling expenses related to the implementation of a writ of demolition. Specifically, the Court examined his compliance with Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court regarding the need for court approval and proper documentation of expenses.
What is conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service?	Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service refers to actions by a public official that harm the reputation or efficiency of the government. It is a broad category that includes acts that may not be explicitly illegal but nonetheless undermine public trust and confidence in the civil service.
What are the steps a sheriff must take when requiring funds for a writ of execution?	A sheriff must first prepare an estimate of expenses, submit it to the court for approval, and ensure the funds are deposited with the clerk of court. After executing the writ, the sheriff must provide a detailed accounting of how the funds were spent, and any unspent amount must be returned to the depositing party.
What happens if a sheriff fails to follow these procedures?	Failure to follow these procedures can lead to administrative sanctions, including suspension or dismissal from service. Additionally, it may raise suspicions of corruption or other misconduct, further damaging the reputation of the judiciary.
Can a sheriff receive voluntary payments directly from a party-litigant?	No, sheriffs are generally not allowed to receive voluntary payments directly from parties involved in a case. All payments for expenses must go through the clerk of court, as outlined in the Rules of Court.
What is the role of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in this case?	The OCA is responsible for the supervision and administration of all courts in the Philippines. In this case, the OCA evaluated the report and recommendation of the investigating judge and made its own recommendation to the Supreme Court regarding the appropriate administrative action.
What was the final decision of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court found Sheriff Erlito DS. Bacho guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and suspended him from service for six months and one day without pay. He was also sternly warned against repeating similar actions in the future.
Why was the sheriff not dismissed from service?	While conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service can warrant dismissal, the Court took into consideration the circumstances of the case and the fact that this was the sheriff’s first offense of this nature. Thus, a suspension was deemed more appropriate.

This case underscores the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules in the judiciary. It reinforces the need for transparency and accountability in the handling of funds, particularly by court personnel. By adhering to these standards, the judiciary can maintain public trust and ensure the fair and efficient administration of justice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ATTY. MARCOS R. SUNDIANG VS. ERLITO DS. BACHO, A.M. No. P-12-3043, January 15, 2014