AM P 05 2000; (September 2007) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-05-2000; September 27, 2007
Atty. Jose A. Suelto, Complainant, vs. Deputy Sheriffs Rogelio P. Forniza and Bonifacio V. Maputi, Respondents.
FACTS
Atty. Jose A. Suelto filed a complaint against Deputy Sheriffs Rogelio P. Forniza and Bonifacio V. Maputi for allegedly deducting Nine Thousand Pesos (₱9,000.00) as sheriff’s fees from the judgment money collected from defendants in Civil Case No. 8911. The complainant asserted that his client, the prevailing party, had already advanced ₱1,500.00 for sheriff’s expenses and that the law requires the losing defendant to pay such fees. He claimed this unauthorized deduction prevented him from receiving his contingent attorney’s fees. The respondents denied the accusation, contending they had turned over ₱36,749.29 to the plaintiff and her counsel, with a balance of ₱3,500.00 still to be collected. They admitted receiving ₱500.00 from the plaintiff for expenses, which was spent on transportation, snacks, and an allowance for an assisting policeman.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent deputy sheriffs are administratively liable for their actions in the implementation of the writ of execution.
RULING
Yes, the respondents are administratively liable, not for the alleged ₱9,000.00 deduction, but for violating the proper procedure for sheriff’s expenses under the Rules of Court. The investigation, including the affidavit of the complainant’s own client, failed to substantiate the claim of an improper ₱9,000.00 deduction. However, the respondents’ admission that they received and spent the ₱500.00 advanced by the plaintiff without prior court approval constitutes a clear violation of Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. This rule mandates that estimated expenses for serving writs must be approved by the court, deposited with the clerk of court, and liquidated thereafter, with the costs ultimately taxed against the judgment debtor. The respondents bypassed this procedure. Furthermore, expenses for snacks and police allowances are not authorized expenditures. The Court has consistently held that sheriffs must adhere strictly to these rules to maintain integrity and avoid suspicion. For this violation, and considering precedent, a three-month suspension without pay is appropriate. The respondents are sternly warned that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.