G.R. No. A.M. No. P-04-1889. November 23, 2007.
SABINO L. ARANDA, JR., complainant, vs. TEODORO S. ALVAREZ, Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 253, Las Piñas City, and RODERICK O. ABAIGAR, Sheriff, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 79, Las Piñas City, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Sabino L. Aranda, Jr. was a prevailing party in an ejectment case. After an alias writ of demolition was issued, Sheriffs Teodoro S. Alvarez and Roderick O. Abaigar submitted a report stating they had fully implemented the writ. Aranda filed an administrative complaint, accusing them of falsifying that report by claiming to have demolished structures when they allegedly had not, and of grave misconduct for demanding and receiving P40,000 from his relative for the execution.
In their defense, the sheriffs maintained they legitimately implemented the writ, providing photographs as evidence. They admitted receiving P40,000, claiming it was an agreed-upon amount to cover expenses for a 25-person demolition team, including food, transportation, and labor fees. They stated this estimate was verbal and not submitted for court approval, and no liquidation of the funds was ever made.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Sheriffs Alvarez and Abaigar are administratively liable.

RULING

Yes, the sheriffs are administratively liable for grave misconduct. The investigating judge found them not guilty of falsification, as testimony and evidence confirmed the writ was substantially implemented. However, they were found to have committed a serious violation of Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court regarding sheriff’s expenses.
The legal logic is clear and strict: for expenses in executing writs, the sheriff must provide the interested party with a written estimate for the court’s approval. Upon approval, the amount is deposited with the clerk of court, disbursed subject to liquidation, and any unspent sum refunded. By directly demanding and receiving P40,000 without any court-approved estimate or subsequent liquidation, the respondents arrogated unto themselves the authority to determine and collect fees, violating the rule designed to prevent extortion and ensure transparency. Their claim of ignorance of the rule is not an excuse. This act constitutes grave misconduct, defined as a wrongful intention coupled with a transgression of established rules. The Court emphasized that sheriffs must adhere strictly to procedural rules on fees to preserve public trust in the judiciary. Consequently, the Court imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government.