A.M. No. P-99-1317; August 1, 2000
Armando M. Canlas and Ruby C. Dungca, complainants, vs. Sheriff Claude B. Balasbas, Regional Trial Court of Angeles City (Branch 59), respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Armando M. Canlas and Ruby C. Dungca accused respondent Sheriff Claude B. Balasbas of gross misconduct and dereliction of duty concerning the execution of two writs of attachment. The complainants alleged that before implementing the writs, Sheriff Balasbas directly solicited and received cash amounts from them for purported expenses. Canlas claimed he gave P2,000.00 personally and an additional P3,000.00 through an intermediary. Dungca alleged she gave P2,500.00 and later an additional P5,000.00. They further contended that despite these payments and their assistance in locating the defendant’s assets, the sheriff failed to take custody of two specified motor vehicles.
In his defense, Sheriff Balasbas admitted receiving P2,000.00 from Canlas and P1,500.00 from Dungca but denied receiving the other alleged amounts. He claimed these sums were voluntarily given and used for gasoline, food, and annotation expenses related to implementing the writs. He denied any negligence regarding the vehicles, stating he had difficulty locating them but had taken protective legal measures by annotating the levy on their registration papers.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Claude B. Balasbas is administratively liable for misconduct for soliciting and receiving money from litigants without complying with the proper procedure for execution expenses under the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, the respondent sheriff is guilty of serious misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendation of the investigating judge, ruling that Sheriff Balasbas violated Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. This rule mandates a strict procedure for execution expenses: the sheriff must submit an estimate of expenses to the court for approval. The approved amount must then be deposited with the clerk of court, who, as ex officio sheriff, is authorized to disburse the funds to the assigned sheriff. Any unspent amount must be refunded.
The Court found that the amounts received by Sheriff Balasbas from the complainants were not part of any court-approved estimate and were not deposited with the clerk of court. Instead, he received them directly for his personal use. This act constituted a clear violation of the rule, regardless of the alleged voluntariness of the payments. The Court emphasized that sheriffs cannot accept any gratuities or voluntary payments from parties in the course of their official duties, as they are held to high standards of integrity due to their crucial role in the administration of justice and their close contact with the public. The voluntary nature of the payment does not exonerate the sheriff or mitigate the misconduct. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 with a stern warning.