G.R. No. A.M. No. P-00-1420. March 07, 2002.
ROSEMARY P. BERNADEZ, complainant, vs. RICKY V. MONTEJAR, Process Server, RTC, Branch 64, Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rosemary P. Bernadez, as attorney-in-fact for her father Felimon Palomares, mortgaged a parcel of land to the Rural Bank of Guihulngan (Negros Oriental), Inc., to secure a loan. In 1998, respondent Ricky V. Montejar, a process server of the RTC, Branch 64, Guihulngan, notified complainant of the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage and the scheduled public auction of the land. Complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent, alleging failure to comply with publication requirements for the foreclosure notice and usurpation of authority, as respondent was a process server and not a sheriff. Respondent countered that he acted pursuant to an Office Order from the Presiding Judge authorizing him to perform sheriff duties, and that the loan amount (P30,118.17) exempted the foreclosure from publication under the Rural Banks Act ( R.A. No. 7353 ). The auction did not proceed as complainant paid the loan. Complainant later filed another complaint, alleging respondent issued a handwritten receipt for sheriff’s fees for service of summons in a civil case, despite fees being paid upon filing, and that he used an envelope with “Free Postage” for his counter-affidavit, violating franking privileges under P.D. No. 26.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Ricky V. Montejar is administratively liable for his actions related to the extrajudicial foreclosure and other alleged violations.

RULING

The Court found respondent not liable for the extrajudicial foreclosure allegations but liable for other infractions. On the foreclosure: respondent was duly authorized by the Presiding Judge to act as sheriff, and the loan amount (below P100,000) exempted the foreclosure from publication under Section 6 of R.A. No. 7353 . However, respondent was held liable for: (1) issuing a handwritten receipt for sheriff’s fees, violating Section 113 of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual, which requires official receipts for payments; and (2) using an envelope with “Free Postage” for his counter-affidavit, violating P.D. No. 26, as franking privileges are limited to judges for official judicial communications. The Court adopted the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation and fined respondent P1,000.00 for these violations, with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.