The Supreme Court ruled that a sheriff’s failure to adhere to proper procedures for handling and liquidating funds received during court-ordered actions constitutes simple misconduct. This decision reinforces the principle that sheriffs must strictly comply with Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, ensuring transparency and accountability in their financial dealings. The ruling emphasizes the importance of depositing funds with the Clerk of Court and providing proper liquidation, regardless of any agreement with the involved parties. By failing to follow these procedures, a sheriff undermines public trust and the integrity of the judicial system, leading to disciplinary measures.

When Shortcuts Lead to Misconduct: Examining a Sheriff’s Financial Accountability

This case revolves around an administrative complaint filed by Gloria Serdoncillo against Sheriff Nestor M. Lanzaderas of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, General Santos City. The complaint alleged grave misconduct and incompetence in relation to Civil Case No. 6677, “Petra Vda. de Sismaet, in her personal capacity and the Heirs of the late Angeles Sismaet, et al. v. Regino Getis, et al.” Serdoncillo accused Lanzaderas of various improprieties, including falsely accusing her staff of theft, misleading occupants of a property subject to a demolition order, and charging exorbitant fees without proper accounting.

The core issue stems from Lanzaderas’s handling of funds related to the demolition. Serdoncillo claimed that Lanzaderas charged Php 172,600.00 for the demolition, despite the plaintiff, Sismaet, personally covering labor costs and other expenses. Lanzaderas allegedly failed to account for this amount, leading to the administrative complaint. In his defense, Lanzaderas denied the allegations, claiming that the complainant aimed to inflate expenses for profit and that the plaintiffs agreed to the financial arrangements. He admitted to receiving the money directly from the plaintiffs, but justified this by saying it was done to expedite the demolition process. However, the Supreme Court found that Lanzaderas’ actions violated established rules regarding the handling of funds in court-ordered actions.

The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Sections 9 and 10 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which govern the deposit and payment of expenses incurred in enforcing writs. Section 10 specifically states:

Sec. 10. Sheriffs, process servers and other persons serving processes. With regard to sheriffs 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 within 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 sheriffs expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor.

The Court found that Lanzaderas failed to comply with these requirements. He admitted to receiving Php 172,600.00 from the complainant, but did not deposit the money with the Clerk of Court or provide proper liquidation of expenses. The Court stated:

In the instant case, it is undisputed that Lanzaderas miserably failed to comply with the above-requirements of Sections 9 and 10. He admitted that a sum total of P172,600.00 was given to him by the complainant. Indeed, while Lanzaderas complied with the preparation of an estimate of expenses and in obtaining the court’s approval for such, he, however, willfully disregarded the rules in so far as his collection and receipt of the monies which should have been deposited with the Clerk of Court, and the subsequent liquidation of his expenses. The acquiescence or consent of the plaintiffs to such arrangement, does not absolve the sheriff for failure to comply with the afore-mentioned rules.

The Supreme Court underscored that compliance with these rules is compulsory, emphasizing the use of the word “shall” in the relevant sections. This indicates a mandatory duty for sheriffs to adhere to the prescribed procedures. The Court dismissed the argument that the plaintiffs’ consent to the direct payment arrangement excused Lanzaderas’s non-compliance. The integrity of the judicial process requires strict adherence to established rules, regardless of agreements between parties.

The Court further explained that sheriffs are only authorized to receive court-approved fees. Any other payments, even if intended for lawful purposes, are considered improper. This is to prevent any suspicion of impropriety or corruption. The Court emphasized that:

Needless to say, only payment of sheriffs fees may be received by sheriffs. Even assuming that the payments were offered to him by complainant to defray expenses of the demolition is of no moment. It makes no difference if the money, in whole or in part, had indeed been spent in the implementation of the writ. The sheriff may receive only the court-approved sheriffs fees and the acceptance of any other amount is improper, even if applied for lawful purposes.

This principle aims to maintain the integrity and impartiality of sheriffs in their official duties. By strictly adhering to the prescribed financial procedures, sheriffs can avoid any perception of bias or impropriety.

The Supreme Court found Lanzaderas liable for simple misconduct, which is defined as a transgression of an established rule of action, unlawful behavior, or negligence committed by a public officer. While the acts were improper, there was no evidence of corrupt intent or persistent disregard of well-known legal rules, which would have constituted grave misconduct. The Court cited China Banking Corp. v. Janolo, Jr., 577 Phil. 176, 181 (2008), to define simple misconduct.

The Court emphasized the vital role sheriffs play in the administration of justice. As agents of the law, they are expected to uphold high standards of honesty and integrity. The Court referenced Spouses Villa, et al. v. Judge Ayco, et al., 669 Phil. 148, 157-158 (2011), highlighting the importance of maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court.

Ultimately, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to Lanzaderas’s one-month salary instead of suspension, allowing him to continue performing his duties. The Court also issued a stern warning that any future similar offenses would be dealt with more severely. This decision serves as a reminder to all sheriffs of the importance of adhering to established financial procedures to maintain the integrity of the judicial system and uphold public trust.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Sheriff Lanzaderas committed misconduct by failing to properly handle and liquidate funds received during a court-ordered demolition. Specifically, he failed to deposit the funds with the Clerk of Court as required by Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
What is simple misconduct?	Simple misconduct is defined as a transgression of some established rule of action, an unlawful behavior, or negligence committed by a public officer. It differs from grave misconduct, which requires evidence of corrupt intent or a persistent disregard of well-known legal rules.
What does Rule 141 of the Rules of Court say about sheriff’s expenses?	Rule 141 mandates that all expenses related to executing writs or safeguarding property must be estimated by the sheriff and approved by the court. Once approved, the interested party must deposit the funds with the Clerk of Court, who disburses them to the deputy sheriff, subject to liquidation and court approval.
Can a sheriff receive direct payments from a party-litigant?	No, sheriffs are not allowed to receive direct payments from parties involved in a case. All funds must be deposited with the Clerk of Court to ensure transparency and proper accounting.
What is the consequence of a sheriff failing to comply with Rule 141?	Failure to comply with Rule 141 constitutes misconduct and warrants disciplinary action. Depending on the severity of the misconduct, penalties may include fines, suspension, or even dismissal from service.
Why is it important for sheriffs to follow proper procedures?	Sheriffs play a vital role in the administration of justice, and their conduct must be beyond reproach. Following proper procedures ensures transparency, accountability, and public trust in the judicial system.
What was the penalty imposed on Sheriff Lanzaderas in this case?	The Supreme Court found Sheriff Lanzaderas guilty of simple misconduct and imposed a fine equivalent to his one-month salary. He was also sternly warned against committing similar offenses in the future.
Can the parties agree to waive the requirements of Rule 141?	No, the requirements of Rule 141 are mandatory and cannot be waived by agreement of the parties. Compliance with these rules is essential for maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

This case underscores the critical importance of adherence to established rules and procedures within the judiciary, particularly for officers like sheriffs who directly interact with the public and handle funds. By strictly enforcing these regulations, the Supreme Court aims to maintain the integrity of the judicial system and ensure public trust in its processes.

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: Gloria Serdoncillo v. Sheriff Nestor M. Lanzaderas, A.M. No. P-16-3424, August 07, 2017