ATTY. RUTILLO B. PASOK, Complainant, vs. CARLOS P. DIAZ, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Tacurong City, Respondent.
FACTS
This is an administrative complaint for Dishonesty, Gross Inefficiency, Abuse of Authority, and violation of R.A. 3019 filed by Atty. Rutillo B. Pasok against Sheriff Carlos P. Diaz. The charges stem from multiple cases where respondent allegedly extorted money from winning litigants under the pretext of covering execution expenses and refused to perform his duties if payments were not made.
The specific instances are:
1. In Civil Case No. 761 (Spouses Cayena, et al. vs. Spouses Pascua, et al.), respondent demanded money from complainant to implement a writ of possession, citing his meager salary. Complainant used his own vehicle to transport respondent, but respondent conferred with the defendants (whom he later claimed were relatives) and unilaterally postponed the writ’s implementation.
2. In Civil Case No. 02-104 (Spouses Sabanal vs. Spouses Agtarap), respondent sent a letter demanding ₱10,000 for execution expenses. When complainant refused, respondent took no action on the writ.
3. In sixteen (16) civil cases involving Spouses Loyola, respondent demanded ₱500 to ₱1,000 per case for execution. Upon the spouses’ follow-up, he demanded and received ₱2,000, promising to submit Sheriff’s Reports within a week. He failed to implement the writs and later insinuated the amount was insufficient given his ₱6,000 salary.
4. In Civil Case No. 02-076 (Gerry Roxas Foundation vs. Spouses Sespeñe, et al.), respondent sent a demand letter asking for ₱10,000 for execution. No action was taken when the amount was not paid.
5. In Civil Case No. 671 (Sultan Kudarat Construction and Development Corp. vs. Spouses Sumagaysay, et al.), after the judgment debtor paid ₱1,050,000, respondent demanded ₱50,000 as legal fees. Complainant paid on condition an official receipt be issued. The Office of the Clerk of Court issued receipts for only ₱37,600. Respondent claimed the ₱12,400 balance was his for services rendered in the garnishment.
In his Comment, respondent admitted: conferring with defendants in Civil Case No. 761; requiring a ₱10,000 deposit in Civil Case No. 02-104; receiving ₱2,000 from Spouses Loyola for expenses; and receiving ₱50,000 in Civil Case No. 671, claiming the ₱12,400 balance was voluntarily given. He defended the deposit requirements as standard practice and blamed non-implementation on indigent defendants or lack of information from complainant.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the case for investigation. The Investigating Judge found respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty, recommending dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Carlos P. Diaz is administratively liable for the acts complained of.
RULING
Yes, respondent is GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and DISHONESTY and is DISMISSED from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency.
The Court found the charges substantiated. A sheriff’s duty to execute writs is ministerial. While sheriffs may require advance deposits for legitimate expenses under Section 10 of Rule 141, they must issue official receipts and provide a detailed accounting. Respondent’s actions constituted corrupt practices: he demanded and received money without issuing official receipts, failed to render accounts, and conditioned performance of his duties on payment. His admission of receiving the ₱50,000 in Civil Case No. 671, of which only ₱37,600 was officially receipted, with him keeping the balance, is clear dishonesty and misappropriation. His excuses for non-performance (e.g., defendants being relatives or indigent) are unacceptable and constitute gross inefficiency and dereliction of duty. Such acts erode public trust in the judiciary. Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty are grave offenses punishable by dismissal under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
