G.R. No. P-04-1918. December 16, 2005. LBC BANK, thru its Legal Officer Atty. Dorylene S. B. Yara, Complainant, vs. JUAN C. MARQUEZ, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Rosales, Pangasinan, Respondent.
FACTS

LBC Bank filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Juan C. Marquez for irregularities in an extrajudicial foreclosure auction. The bank alleged that Marquez failed to properly serve the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale, scheduled only one auction date despite the “two-bidder rule,” and, crucially, solicited an increased sheriff’s fee from 2.5% to 5% on the eve of the auction. In return for this fee, he offered to provide a “dummy bidder” to satisfy the two-bidder requirement in a single auction. When the bank refused his demand, he allegedly threatened to declare a failure of auction, forcing a reschedule and republication.
Sheriff Marquez denied the accusations. He claimed he published and posted the notices properly, visited the bank only to remind them of the sale and discuss standard legal fees, and did not solicit any improper payment. He asserted that the bank’s credit investigator, Manolito Casingal, was the one who attempted to bribe him by offering to split a check intended for litigation expenses. Marquez maintained he conducted the auction properly, resulting in LBC Bank as the winning bidder.

ISSUE

Whether Sheriff Juan C. Marquez is administratively liable for misconduct in relation to the foreclosure proceedings.

RULING

Yes, Sheriff Marquez is administratively liable, though not for the grave misconduct of extortion as initially alleged. The Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to conclusively prove that Marquez demanded a bribe or attempted to rig the auction. However, he was found guilty of simple misconduct for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The legal logic centers on the imperative standard of conduct required of court personnel, particularly sheriffs who are frontline agents in the execution of court processes.
The Court emphasized that sheriffs must discharge their duties with due care, utmost diligence, and above all, must avoid any appearance of impropriety. By visiting the bank on the eve of the auction to discuss monetary matters—specifically the sheriff’s fee—Marquez created a situation that reasonably aroused suspicion and compromised the integrity of the proceedings. His duty was merely to conduct the auction impartially, not to engage in discussions about fees with an interested party in a manner that could be misconstrued. This act, committed by a sheriff with over twenty years of experience, demonstrated a lack of circumspection and prudence, tarnishing the court’s image. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00) with a stern warning, modifying the Office of the Court Administrator’s lighter recommended penalty.