AM P 06 2212; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-06-2212; July 14, 2009
Geronimo Francisco, Petitioner, vs. Sebastian Bolivar, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Naga City, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Geronimo Francisco was a prevailing party in a civil case for damages. After the judgment became final, a writ of execution was issued, and respondent Sheriff Sebastian Bolivar was assigned to implement it. Respondent submitted an estimated expense account of ₱7,500.00, demanding its deposit. Complainant could only deposit ₱2,000.00, which respondent later withdrew. Respondent allegedly subjected complainant to public humiliation, gave him the run-around, and demanded an additional ₱500.00. During implementation on June 6, 2005, respondent merely levied upon two tricycles. Subsequently, the parties entered a compromise agreement reducing the judgment debt to ₱210,000.00, with a partial payment of ₱180,000.00 made. Respondent, however, deducted ₱10,000.00 from this payment without explanation or proper liquidation.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Sebastian Bolivar is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of execution.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of dishonesty and grave abuse of authority. The legal logic centers on the violation of specific rules governing sheriffs’ conduct. First, respondent failed to adhere to the procedural mandate under Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which requires sheriffs to secure court approval for estimated expenses and to liquidate incurred expenses within the same period for filing a return of the writ. Respondent demanded and received various sums without prior court approval and without submitting a timely and proper liquidation, retaining unexplained funds. This constitutes dishonesty. Second, his conduct—including public berating of the complainant, creating unnecessary delays, and making unauthorized deductions—constitutes grave abuse of authority. Such acts erode public trust in the judiciary. Sheriffs, as frontline officers of the court, must act with utmost propriety and diligence. Respondent’s actions fell far short of this standard, warranting administrative sanction. The Court found the imposed penalty of a two-year suspension without pay to be appropriate given the infractions.