AM P 07 2300; (November, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. P-07-2300 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2231-P). November 29, 2011.
ATTY. RUTILLO B. PASOK, COMPLAINANT, VS. CARLOS P. DIAZ, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, TACURONG CITY, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
This is an administrative complaint for Dishonesty, Gross Inefficiency, Abuse of Authority, and violation of R.A. 3019 filed by Atty. Rutillo B. Pasok against Sheriff Carlos P. Diaz. The charges stem from multiple cases where respondent allegedly extorted money from winning litigants under the pretext of covering execution expenses and refused to perform his duties if payments were not made. The specific instances are:
1. In Civil Case No. 761 (Spouses Cayena vs. Spouses Pascua), respondent demanded money from complainant for implementing a writ of possession, citing his meager salary. Complainant used his own vehicle to transport respondent, but respondent conferred with the defendants (claiming they were his relatives) and unilaterally postponed the writ’s implementation.
2. In Civil Case No. 02-104 (Spouses Sabanal vs. Spouses Agtarap), respondent sent a letter demanding P10,000 for execution expenses. When complainant refused, respondent took no action on the writ.
3. In sixteen (16) civil cases involving Spouses Loyola, respondent demanded P500 to P1,000 per case for executing writs. Upon follow-up, he demanded and received P2,000, promising to submit Sheriff’s Reports, but failed to implement the writs. He later insinuated the amount was insufficient given his salary.
4. In Civil Case No. 02-076 (Gerry Roxas Foundation vs. Spouses Sespeña), respondent sent a demand letter for P10,000 for execution. The writ was not implemented when the amount was not paid.
5. In Civil Case No. 671 (Sultan Kudarat Construction vs. Spouses Sumagaysay), upon the judgment debtor’s payment of P1,050,000, respondent demanded P50,000 as legal fees. Complainant paid on condition an official receipt be issued. The Office of the Clerk of Court issued receipts for only P37,600. Respondent claimed the P12,400 balance was his entitlement for services rendered in the garnishment.
In his Comment, respondent generally admitted sending demand letters for estimated expenses pursuant to administrative circulars but denied wrongdoing. He claimed the P2,000 from Spouses Loyola was for sheriff’s expenses and that the P12,400 balance in Civil Case No. 671 was voluntarily given. The case was referred for investigation.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Carlos P. Diaz is administratively liable for the acts complained of.
RULING
Yes, respondent is GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT, DISHONESTY, and GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY. The Court found the charges substantiated.
1. On Demanding and Receiving Money: Respondent’s acts of demanding and receiving money, particularly the unaccounted P12,400 in Civil Case No. 671, constitute dishonesty and grave misconduct. Sheriffs cannot receive payments from parties without issuing official receipts and depositing the amounts with the court’s collection officer. His claim that the balance was a voluntary gift is untenable; it was an illegal exaction.
2. On Failure to Perform Duties: Respondent’s refusal or failure to implement court writs unless his monetary demands were met constitutes gross neglect of duty and abuse of authority. A sheriff’s duty to execute writs is ministerial. His excuses—such as defendants being indigent, being busy, or his salary being low—are not valid justifications for inaction.
3. On Violation of Procedures: While sheriffs may require advance deposits for legitimate execution expenses under guidelines, respondent perverted this into a scheme of extortion. He made execution contingent upon payments directly to him and failed to render proper accounting or reports.
The Court emphasized that sheriffs are frontline representatives of the judiciary, and their integrity is paramount. Respondent’s actions eroded public trust in the administration of justice. The penalty for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and gross neglect of duty is DISMISSAL from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government agency.