The Supreme Court ruled that a sheriff’s failure to follow proper procedure in collecting service fees constitutes gross dereliction of duty. This decision reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust, and officials must adhere to strict guidelines regarding financial transactions to maintain integrity and accountability.

Sheriff’s Fees Under Scrutiny: Can Public Office Be a Source of Unlawful Exaction?

This case revolves around an anonymous complaint filed against Pershing T. Yared, a sheriff accused of collecting excessive service fees. The complainant presented receipts showing discrepancies between the fees collected and the amounts allowed under the Rules of Court. The central question is whether Sheriff Yared violated the trust placed in him by improperly handling fees for the service of summons.

The anonymous complaint, while initially viewed with caution, was deemed verifiable due to the public records involved. The Supreme Court has stated in Anonymous Complaint Against Gibson A. Araula that:

Although the Court does not as a rule act on anonymous complaints, cases are accepted in which the charge could be fully borne by public records of indubitable integrity, thus, needing no corroboration by evidence to be offered by the complainant, whose identity and integrity could hardly be material where the matter involved is of public interest.

Section 9(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court governs the fees that sheriffs can collect. It allows a fee of P60.00 for each defendant served. Furthermore, it states:

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 fee’s, 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 ebtor.

The procedure outlined in this rule is crucial. The sheriff must first estimate the expenses, then obtain court approval, have the amount deposited with the Clerk of Court, and finally, liquidate the expenses with a report. Sheriff Yared failed to follow this procedure, collecting fees directly without court approval or proper documentation.

The Deputy Court Administrator’s report highlighted that Sheriff Yared personally collected the amounts without obtaining court approval or having the amounts deposited with the Clerk of Court. This direct collection was a significant violation of the prescribed process.

The court emphasized that any amount collected beyond the lawful fees constitutes unlawful exaction. In Florendo v. Enrile, A.M. No. P-92-695, 7 December 1994, 239 SCRA 22, the court previously stated that any excess amount is considered a consideration for the performance of duty, making the sheriff liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty. This principle reinforces the importance of adherence to procedural rules to avoid any perception of impropriety.

The Supreme Court stressed that public office is a public trust, as enshrined in Section 1 of Article XI of the Constitution:

Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

The Court also stated in Ganaden v. Bolasco, A.M. No. P-124, 16 May 1975, 64 SCRA 50, that public service requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline. This expectation extends to all those involved in the administration of justice, who must maintain propriety and remain above suspicion at all times. Sheriffs, as ranking officers of the court, are held to high standards of diligence and care.

The court acknowledged the Investigating Judge’s opinion that the amounts asked by the respondent may be considered reasonable under the circumstances. However, the fact that the required procedure was not followed could not be ignored. The court has ruled that repeated demands for money to defray expenses without court approval constitutes grave misconduct, citing Ong v. Meregildo, A.M. No. P-93-935, 5 July 1994, 233 SCRA 632.

The Court noted Sheriff Yared’s admission of collecting more than the allowed amount in other cases, indicating a problematic pattern of behavior. Such erroneous practices must be eradicated to maintain the integrity of the judiciary. Every officer must obey court orders and processes without delay and exercise professionalism in their duties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Sheriff Yared committed grave misconduct by collecting excessive service fees without following the proper procedure outlined in Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. This involved assessing if he violated the principle that public office is a public trust.
What is Rule 141 of the Rules of Court?	Rule 141 outlines the legal fees that sheriffs and other court officers can collect for their services. It also specifies the procedure for estimating, approving, and liquidating expenses incurred during the service of court processes.
What procedure should a sheriff follow when collecting fees?	The sheriff must estimate expenses, obtain court approval, have the interested party deposit the amount with the Clerk of Court, and then liquidate the expenses with a detailed report. Any unspent amount should be refunded to the depositing party.
Why is it important for sheriffs to follow this procedure?	Following the procedure ensures transparency and accountability in the handling of public funds. It prevents unlawful exactions and maintains public trust in the integrity of the judiciary.
What was the court’s ruling in this case?	The court found Sheriff Yared guilty of gross dereliction of duty for failing to follow the proper procedure in collecting service fees. He was fined P5,000.00 and sternly warned against repeating such actions.
Can anonymous complaints be considered by the court?	Yes, anonymous complaints can be considered if the charges can be fully supported by public records of indubitable integrity. This is especially true when the matter involved is of public interest.
What does it mean that public office is a public trust?	This principle, enshrined in the Constitution, means that public officers must be accountable to the people, serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, and act with patriotism and justice. Their conduct must always be above suspicion.
What is the consequence of violating Rule 141?	Violating Rule 141 can result in administrative penalties, such as fines, suspension, or even dismissal from service. It can also lead to charges of grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.

This case underscores the importance of ethical conduct and adherence to procedures in public service. The ruling serves as a reminder to all court personnel that they must uphold the highest standards of integrity and accountability. Failure to do so can result in serious consequences.

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: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST PERSHING T. YARED, SHERIFF III, MTC, G.R No. 43628, June 28, 2005