G.R. No. P-05-2007; June 8, 2005
Senen Vilos, complainant, vs. Expedito B. Bato, Sheriff III, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Senen Vilos obtained a favorable final judgment in an ejectment case. A writ of execution was issued, and respondent Sheriff Expedito Bato was tasked with its enforcement. Respondent received the writ on February 19, 2002. He submitted a return stating the judgment debtors promised to settle their obligation by April 2002 with Vilos’s conformity. However, Vilos discovered that respondent had been collecting partial payments from the debtors starting April 2002, totaling ₱39,000.00, without his knowledge. Respondent failed to immediately remit these collections to Vilos or deposit them with the court as required, and he did not submit periodic reports on the writ’s enforcement.
Respondent, in his defense, argued the complainant demanded full payment, which the debtors could not provide at once. He claimed he intended to turn over the full amount once collected and asserted that private funds could not be subject to malversation. The Office of the Court Administrator noted respondent had two prior administrative cases for similar offenses: one for gross dishonesty (resulting in an admonition) and another for misconduct and malversation (resulting in a six-month suspension).

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Expedito Bato is administratively liable for his actions in enforcing the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on his blatant violation of explicit procedural rules and his established pattern of dishonesty. Under Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a sheriff must turn over amounts collected for a money judgment to the judgment obligee or, if impracticable, immediately deposit them with the clerk of court. Respondent’s failure to remit the ₱39,000.00 collected over several months constituted a clear breach of this mandatory duty, amounting to dishonesty and misappropriation.
The Court rejected his defense. His claim of awaiting full payment contravenes the rule requiring immediate turnover. His assertion that the funds were “private” is erroneous; monies collected by a sheriff in his official capacity are held in trust for the prevailing party and are subject to official custody rules. His actions demonstrated a corrupt intent to withhold funds. Most critically, his prior administrative penalties for identical offenses established him as an incorrigible and inveterately dishonest court employee. The progressive discipline of prior sanctions (admonition, then suspension) proved ineffective, necessitating the ultimate penalty of dismissal to preserve public trust in the judiciary.