A.M. No. P-06-2246. July 11, 2012.
Lambayong Teachers and Employees Cooperative, represented by Gudelio S. Valeroso, Complainant, vs. Carlos P. Diaz, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Tacurong City, Respondent.

FACTS

The complainant cooperative filed an administrative case against Sheriff Carlos P. Diaz for dereliction of duty, inefficiency, grave abuse of authority, and dishonesty. The charges stemmed from Diaz’s implementation of three writs of execution issued by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in collection cases filed by the cooperative against its members. The complainant alleged that Diaz delayed the execution, failed to properly account for garnished amounts totaling P16,695.17, and remitted only P8,347.93 to the cooperative.
In his defense, Sheriff Diaz denied the allegations. He explained the delays were due to difficulties in personally serving the notices on the judgment debtors. He claimed he fully accounted for and remitted the collected amounts, providing details of turn-overs, including a specific instance where a small cash amount was returned to him by the cooperative’s treasurer for expenses. He also asserted that some garnished checks were returned to the debtors by another court officer after they paid legal fees.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Carlos P. Diaz is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writs of execution.

RULING

Yes, Sheriff Diaz is administratively liable for Simple Misconduct. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and the Investigating Judge correctly dismissed the charges for dereliction of duty, inefficiency, and dishonesty for lack of substantial evidence. However, Diaz was found liable for grave abuse of discretion, construed as simple misconduct, for violating the explicit procedure for claiming execution expenses under Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
The legal logic is clear: the rule mandates that a sheriff must first estimate the necessary execution expenses for court approval. The interested party then deposits the approved amount with the Clerk of Court, who distributes it to the sheriff, subject to liquidation. Diaz unilaterally demanded and accepted P1,500.00 directly from the complainant’s counsel to defray expenses, bypassing this mandatory court-controlled procedure. This act constituted a disregard of established rules designed to prevent irregular transactions and protect the public’s trust in the judiciary. Even if done in good faith, such direct solicitation is impermissible as it creates suspicion and undermines the integrity of court processes. For this simple misconduct, and considering his previous administrative record, the Supreme Court imposed a fine equivalent to his three months’ salary.