This case underscores the critical importance of integrity and adherence to procedure by sheriffs in executing court orders. The Supreme Court in Dy Teban Trading Co., Inc. v. Archibald C. Verga, held that a sheriff’s failure to properly account for expenses, demanding upfront payments without court approval, and unilaterally lifting garnishments constitute grave misconduct, dishonesty, and neglect of duty. This ruling reinforces the principle that sheriffs, as officers of the court, must uphold the highest standards of honesty and transparency in their actions, ensuring public trust in the administration of justice. The Court suspended Sheriff Verga for six months without pay, sending a strong message about the consequences of deviating from established rules and ethical standards.

Unraveling Sheriff Verga’s Misconduct: A Breach of Trust in Butuan City

The case originated from a complaint filed by Dy Teban Trading Co., Inc. against Sheriff Archibald C. Verga of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33, Butuan City. The company alleged that Sheriff Verga engaged in dishonest practices, graft and corruption, gross inefficiency, neglect of duty, and usurpation of judicial authority during the enforcement of a Writ of Execution in SEC Case No. 16-2004. The central issue revolved around whether Sheriff Verga violated established procedures and ethical standards in handling the execution of the court’s order. This misconduct included demanding and receiving money without proper documentation and unilaterally lifting notices of garnishment.

Complainant Leo C. Dy, representing Dy Teban Trading Co., Inc., claimed that Sheriff Verga demanded P10,000 on December 12, 2008, and another P10,000 on December 17, 2008, from his brother Lorencio Dy, without issuing receipts. These claims were supported by affidavits from Lorencio Dy and Emma Lim, the company’s cashier. However, Sheriff Verga failed to implement the writ effectively, allegedly colluding with the judgment debtors. The complainant further accused the sheriff of improperly lifting notices of garnishment without court authorization. This action, according to the complainant, constituted a usurpation of the judge’s authority, further damaging the integrity of the judicial process. The case hinged on establishing whether the sheriff deviated from his mandated duties and engaged in misconduct detrimental to public trust.

In response, Sheriff Verga denied receiving P20,000 from Lorencio Dy, stating that he only received P5,000. He explained that the writ was issued on December 15, 2008, making it impossible for him to demand money as early as December 12, 2008. He presented a “Particulars of Expenses” amounting to P11,000, supposedly approved by Judge Edgar G. Manilag, detailing the expenses for implementing the writ. This document became a point of contention. He also cited a partial Sheriff’s Report dated December 18, 2008, explaining his failure to implement the writ due to the judgment obligors’ refusal to acknowledge receipt and an alleged decision by the Court of Appeals to remand the case. The sheriff claimed that his actions were in good faith, particularly in lifting the notices of garnishment previously served by another sheriff.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the case and found Sheriff Verga’s explanations unsatisfactory. The OCA concluded that the “Particular of Expenses” was fabricated to justify the P5,000 demanded from the complainant’s brother. This was based on denials from both the Clerk of Court and the Branch Clerk of Court regarding the authenticity of the document. The OCA also pointed out that even if the document were genuine, Sheriff Verga failed to observe the proper procedure under Section 10 of Rule 141, which governs legal fees. The OCA cited the case of Cebrian vs. Monteroso, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 34, Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte (A.M. No. P-08-2461; 23 April 2008), emphasizing that a sheriff should never directly receive and keep money for executing a court process. The proper procedure involves seeking court approval for expenses, having the interested party deposit the amount with the clerk of court, and liquidating the expenses within the specified period.

The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory and purely ministerial responsibility of a sheriff in executing a writ. Once a writ is placed in the sheriff’s hands, it is their duty to proceed with reasonable speed to enforce it to the letter, ensuring the judgment’s implementation is not unjustifiably delayed, unless restrained by the court. This duty is underscored by the Rules of Court, which provide a clear framework for handling expenses related to the execution of writs. The Court cited Sanga v. Alcantara (A.M. No. P-09-2657, January 25, 2010, 611 SCRA 1), reiterating the rules regarding the sheriff’s responsibilities:

SEC. 9. Sheriffs and other persons serving processes. ? x x x

(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, 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 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 Court in Sanga v. Alcantara (A.M. No. P-09-2657, January 25, 2010 611 SCRA 1, 8-11), further expounded on the implications of such procedural lapses:

Sheriffs are not allowed to receive any voluntary payments from parties in the course of the performance of their duties. To do so would be inimical to the best interests of the service, because even assuming arguendo that the payments were indeed given and received in good faith, this fact alone would not dispel the suspicion that such payments were made for less than noble purposes. Corollary to this point, a sheriff cannot just unilaterally demand sums of money from a party-litigant without observing the proper procedural steps; otherwise, such act would amount to dishonesty or extortion.

The Supreme Court highlighted the sheriff’s obligation to live up to the strict standards of honesty and integrity required of public servants. The Court emphasized that a sheriff’s conduct must be characterized by honesty and openness, remaining above suspicion at all times. Unilateral and repeated demands for money from a party-litigant without court approval or proper accounting constitute dishonesty and extortion, undermining the administration of justice. This case serves as a reminder of the crucial role sheriffs play in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and the severe consequences of failing to meet those standards.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Sheriff Verga violated established procedures and ethical standards by demanding and receiving money without proper documentation and unilaterally lifting notices of garnishment. The Supreme Court addressed whether his actions constituted grave misconduct, dishonesty, and neglect of duty.
What specific actions did Sheriff Verga take that led to the complaint?	Sheriff Verga allegedly demanded and received P20,000 from Lorencio Dy without issuing receipts. He also unilaterally lifted notices of garnishment without court authorization, and failed to properly implement the Writ of Execution.
What did Sheriff Verga claim in his defense?	Sheriff Verga denied receiving P20,000 and claimed he only received P5,000, which he used for implementing the writ. He presented a “Particulars of Expenses” and cited a Court of Appeals decision as justification for his actions.
What was the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) evaluation?	The OCA found Sheriff Verga’s explanations unsatisfactory. It concluded that the “Particular of Expenses” was fabricated and that he failed to follow proper procedures for handling expenses related to the writ.
What rule did Sheriff Verga violate regarding expenses?	Sheriff Verga violated Section 10 of Rule 141, which requires court approval for estimated expenses, deposit of funds with the clerk of court, and proper liquidation of expenses within a specified period.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court found Sheriff Verga guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and neglect of duty. He was suspended from office without pay for six months and warned that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
What is the significance of this ruling for sheriffs?	This ruling emphasizes the mandatory and purely ministerial responsibility of sheriffs in executing writs. They must adhere to strict standards of honesty, transparency, and procedural compliance in their duties.
What is the consequence for sheriffs who fail to comply with these standards?	Sheriffs who fail to comply with these standards face disciplinary action, including suspension or dismissal from office. The ruling underscores the importance of maintaining public trust in the administration of justice.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dy Teban Trading Co., Inc. v. Archibald C. Verga serves as a critical reminder of the ethical and procedural obligations of sheriffs in the Philippines. By holding Sheriff Verga accountable for his misconduct, the Court reaffirms the importance of integrity and transparency in the execution of court orders. This case underscores the need for sheriffs to strictly adhere to established rules and maintain the highest standards of conduct to safeguard public trust in the judicial system.

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: DY TEBAN TRADING CO., INC. vs. ARCHIBALD C. VERGA, A.M. No. P-11-2914, March 16, 2011