A.M. No. P-865. September 10, 1977.
MARCIANO ESTIOKO SR., complainant, vs. JOSE B. CANTOS, Deputy Sheriff, Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch V, Villasis, Pangasinan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Marciano Estioko Sr. charged Deputy Sheriff Jose B. Cantos with dishonesty. Estioko alleged that on October 13, 1973, Cantos collected P234.00 from him at his residence, purportedly for sheriff’s, publication, posting, registration, and miscellaneous fees related to Civil Case No. U-9209. Cantos issued only a personal receipt. Estioko later verified with the court and discovered that Cantos was not authorized to collect said amount and did not remit it to the court.
In his comment, respondent Cantos admitted receiving the P234.00 from Estioko on October 13, 1973. He claimed the amount was an advance for estimated expenses for enforcing a writ of execution, as the judgment debtors had requested time to comply. He asserted he still held the money, awaiting an alias writ of execution to proceed, as the original writ’s 60-day life had lapsed. He included the collection in his Sheriff’s Return.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Jose B. Cantos is administratively liable for his actions in collecting and retaining the P234.00 from complainant.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found his conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The legal logic is clear: a sheriff’s duty to collect fees is governed by strict rules requiring transparency and accountability. Cantos failed to issue an official receipt for the money collected, issuing only a personal acknowledgment. This act constitutes an illegal exaction under the Revised Penal Code and a direct violation of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual, which mandates the immediate issuance of official receipts for all collections.
Furthermore, his justification for holding the money for over a year due to the lapse of the writ is indefensible. His inaction and failure to properly advise the complainant on the necessary steps to secure an alias writ demonstrated neglect. By retaining the funds for such an extended period without performing the intended service or properly accounting for them, he exhibited a lack of the utmost integrity and strict discipline required of public servants. Public office is a public trust, and Cantos’s conduct fell short of this standard. However, considering his decade of service and this being his first offense, the Court imposed a six-month suspension without pay instead of dismissal, with a stern warning for any future infraction.