A.M. No. P-05-2015; June 28, 2005
Anonymous Complaint vs. Pershing T. Yared, Sheriff III, MTCC, Canlaon City

FACTS

An anonymous complaint was filed against Sheriff Pershing T. Yared for grave misconduct, alleging he collected excessive fees for serving summons. The complainant submitted receipts showing Yared collected ₱1,350.00 for three civil cases and ₱1,650.00 for four others. Citing Section 9 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which sets a fee of ₱60.00 per defendant, the complainant argued the proper fees should have been only ₱660.00 and ₱720.00, respectively. The Office of the Court Administrator referred the matter for investigation.
In his defense, Sheriff Yared admitted collecting ₱3,000.00 from the plaintiff bank for serving summons on 24 defendants in a remote town. He argued the ₱60.00 statutory fee was insufficient for out-of-town service, necessitating additional expenses for motorcycle rental and a guide. He claimed the collected amount was for actual travel and incidental expenses, invoking Executive Order No. 248 on official travel allowances. He further submitted a certification showing he had received similar amounts in other cases, asserting this was a standard practice to cover costs.

ISSUE

Whether Sheriff Pershing T. Yared is administratively liable for collecting fees beyond the amounts prescribed by the Rules of Court for serving court processes.

RULING

Yes, Sheriff Yared is guilty of gross dereliction of duty. The Supreme Court emphasized that sheriffs must strictly adhere to the fee structure mandated by Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. The rule explicitly provides the legal fees for serving court processes, and any additional expenses for implementation, such as travel, must be subject to prior court approval. The Court flatly rejected Yared’s justifications. His claim that the ₱60.00 fee applied only within the poblacion and that higher charges were necessary for out-of-town service has no legal basis. Rule 141 does not create such a distinction.
The Court found Yared’s act of unilaterally determining and collecting amounts beyond the legal fee, without applying for a lawfully approved allowance from the court, to be a clear violation of procedure. His invocation of Executive Order No. 248 was misplaced, as that applies to government personnel on official travel generally, not to the specific, court-regulated process of serving summons where judicial approval is required for extra expenses. His admission of having routinely collected similar excess fees in other cases, as shown by his own evidence, demonstrated a habitual disregard of the rules. This tenacious insistence on an erroneous practice constituted gross dereliction of duty, undermining public trust in the judiciary’s integrity. Accordingly, he was fined ₱5,000.00 and sternly warned.