AM P 05 1990; (July, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-05-1990. July 26, 2007.
BENJAMIN T. HOFER, Complainant, vs. TYRONE V. TAN, Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Benjamin T. Hofer, representing the prevailing party in an ejectment case, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Sheriff Tyrone V. Tan. The complaint alleged that after receiving ₱15,000.00 from the complainant for the implementation of a writ of execution, the respondent failed to fully execute the writ. The respondent had submitted a partial report stating he served the writ on the occupants and gave them a three-day grace period to vacate due to bad weather and the presence of small children. Complainant contended that despite repeated demands, the respondent did not return to complete the execution.
In his defense, the respondent detailed his efforts to serve the writ on the judgment obligors and the occupants he identified as their privies. He argued he granted a brief extension for humanitarian reasons and subsequently filed reports. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the respondent liable for misconduct for personally receiving the ₱15,000.00 and recommended a fine.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Tyrone V. Tan is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of execution.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court exonerated him of the charge of inefficiency, as the complainant failed to substantiate it with substantial evidence. However, the act of personally soliciting and receiving ₱15,000.00 from the complainant constitutes a grave offense.
Sheriffs are strictly prohibited from receiving execution expenses directly from a party. The proper procedure is for the interested party to deposit the amount with the court, which will then disburse it to the sheriff. By bypassing this safeguard, the respondent committed dishonesty and grave misconduct, acts that erode public confidence in the judiciary. His claim that the money was for expenses is immaterial, as the manner of receipt itself violates the rules. Considering the gravity of the offense, which undermines the integrity of judicial processes, the Supreme Court imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality.