AM 1769; (February, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 1769 February 28, 1979
Cresencio Garcia, complainant, vs. Alberto Asilo, Deputy Sheriff, Court of First Instance, Malolos, Bulacan, respondent.
FACTS
The complainant, Cresencio Garcia, charged Deputy Sheriff Alberto Asilo with negligence and illegal exaction. Garcia alleged that on August 18, 1977, he filed summonses for service on two defendants in civil cases, paying Asilo a total of Thirty Pesos (P30.00). However, Asilo issued official receipts for only Eleven Pesos and Ninety Centavos (P11.90), failing to account for the P18.10 balance. Furthermore, despite Garcia’s follow-ups, Asilo had not served the summonses by October 18, 1977, causing significant delay.
In his comment, Asilo explained he attempted service in August but could not locate the defendants at their given addresses. He eventually served the summons on November 21 and 22, 1977, making his returns to the court on November 29. He did not deny receiving the un-receipted P18.10 from Garcia. The case was resolved based on the records without a formal investigation, as the facts were deemed sufficient.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Alberto Asilo is administratively liable for negligence in the performance of his duties and for illegal exaction.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found Asilo guilty of both negligence and illegal exaction. While the Court acknowledged his eventual service of the summonses, the three-month delay was unjustified and constituted negligence in the performance of his official duty. More egregiously, Asilo’s act of demanding and receiving P18.10 without issuing an official receipt was a clear illegal exaction. The Court emphasized that the properly receipted amount of P11.90 was already more than sufficient to cover the sheriff’s fees for serving two summonses, rendering the additional, un-receipted charge indefensible.
Considering the respondent’s 22 years of service without prior administrative charges, the Court imposed a penalty of suspension for three months without pay. He was also ordered to refund the P18.10 to the complainant. The Court issued a stern warning that any repetition of such offenses would be met with more severe consequences and admonished him to be prompt in his duties henceforth. The resolution was ordered to be entered into his personal record.