A.M. No. P-12-3098, October 03, 2023
Reynaldo M. Solema, Complainant, vs. Ma. Consuelo Joie Almeda-Fajardo, Sheriff IV, Branch 93, Regional Trial Court, San Pedro, Laguna, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Reynaldo M. Solema was the private complainant in criminal cases where the accused, Monica L. Dana, was acquitted but ordered to pay him civil indemnity. A writ of execution was subsequently issued. Solema alleged that respondent Sheriff Ma. Consuelo Joie Almeda-Fajardo demanded and directly received PHP 18,000.00 from him for implementation expenses. Fajardo then seized a Starex Van from the judgment debtor’s husband but released it the very next day to the debtor’s brother without any court order. Solema further claimed this release was in exchange for PHP 100,000.00. Fajardo returned the writ unsatisfied.
In her defense, Fajardo claimed she released the vehicle because the registered owner was not the judgment debtor. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and the investigating Executive Judge found that Fajardo indeed directly collected the PHP 18,000.00 from Solema without following the proper procedure of depositing the amount with the clerk of court, and she failed to liquidate or account for this sum. However, the charge of receiving PHP 100,000.00 was not substantiated by evidence.

ISSUE

Should respondent Sheriff Fajardo be held administratively liable?

RULING

Yes, the Court found respondent Fajardo administratively liable. The legal logic centers on the mandatory procedure for sheriffs’ expenses under Rule 141, Section 10 of the Rules of Court. This rule explicitly requires that estimated expenses for writ execution be deposited by the interested party with the clerk of court, who then disburses the funds to the sheriff, subject to liquidation and court approval. By directly soliciting and receiving PHP 18,000.00 from Solema, Fajardo committed a clear violation of this rule, which constitutes gross misconduct. This act demonstrated a corrupt intent and a willful disregard of established procedure.
Furthermore, her failure to liquidate the amount and her unauthorized release of the levied vehicle without a court order constituted additional serious infractions. The Court characterized the direct collection as Serious Dishonesty, as it involved fraudulent conduct for personal gain, and the procedural violations as Gross Misconduct under the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. Considering that Fajardo had already been dismissed from service in a separate prior case, the Court applied Rule 140, Section 18, which allows for the imposition of a fine in lieu of dismissal when the respondent is no longer in service. Consequently, she was found guilty of two counts of Gross Misconduct and one count of Serious Dishonesty and ordered to pay a fine of PHP 300,000.00. The ruling reinforces that court personnel, especially sheriffs, must adhere strictly to procedural rules to preserve public trust in the judiciary.