AM P 07 2356; (May, 2009) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-07-2356; May 21, 2009
Virginia L. Aprieto, Complainant, vs. Noel C. Lindo, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 83, Quezon City, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Virginia Aprieto obtained a favorable decision in an action for recovery of possession. A writ of execution was issued, and respondent Sheriff Noel Lindo was tasked with its enforcement. Aprieto alleged that Sheriff Lindo compelled her to pay a total of ₱255,000 for sheriff fees and execution expenses from September to November 2006, plus an additional ₱48,000 for a geodetic engineer and security guards, without providing a breakdown of these payments. On November 24, 2006, after being informed the eviction was complete, Aprieto paid the remaining balance of ₱159,000. She later discovered less than 30% of the property was cleared. When confronted, Sheriff Lindo stated he disliked making repeated collections.
In his Comment, Sheriff Lindo acknowledged receiving payments and issuing receipts but claimed the funds were legitimately spent. He asserted he completed the eviction on subsequent dates. The Presiding Judge confirmed receiving Aprieto’s confidential letter of complaint and that Sheriff Lindo admitted receiving the amounts, promising to submit a breakdown of expenses, which he failed to do.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Lindo is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of execution.
RULING
Yes, Sheriff Lindo is administratively liable. The Court found he violated Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which governs sheriff’s expenses for execution. The rule mandates that estimated expenses be approved by the court before implementation, with any amount to be disbursed to the sheriff subject to liquidation, and any unspent balance returned. Sheriff Lindo failed to submit an estimate or secure court approval before receiving substantial payments from Aprieto. He did not advise her that such payments should be deposited with the clerk of court, acting without proper authority.
This violation constitutes a less grave offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, specifically “Violation of existing Civil Service Law and rules of serious nature.” As this was his first offense, the penalty of suspension for six months without pay was deemed appropriate. The Court sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. His actions undermined the proper administration of justice and betrayed the trust inherent in his position.