G.R. No. A.M. No. P-09-2628. April 24, 2009.
WILSON C. ONG, Complainant, vs. ARIEL R. PASCASIO, Sheriff IV, MTCC, Br. 5, Olongapo City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Wilson C. Ong was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 6120 for collection of a sum of money. After a decision in his favor became final and executory, a Writ of Execution was issued, leading to the attachment and sale of the judgment debtor’s property at public auction. Following the lapse of the redemption period and the issuance of a Final Bill of Sale in complainant’s favor, a Writ of Possession was issued on February 9, 2006. Respondent Sheriff Ariel R. Pascasio sent a Notice to Vacate to the judgment debtors on June 26, 2006. He requested and received from complainant an initial amount of ₱1,500 and another ₱6,000 as a “partial deposit” for implementing the writ, assuring delivery of the Certificate of Possession by November 14, 2006, which he failed to do. Complainant later discovered that on July 3, 2006, respondent had received ₱210,000 from the judgment debtors via an Acknowledgement Receipt, representing a deposit in connection with the Writ of Execution. Complainant alleged that respondent’s dishonesty caused undue delay in implementing the writ of possession, as the judgment debtors filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution and Possession. Respondent admitted receiving the ₱210,000 but claimed complainant refused to accept it, fearing he would not recover the remaining judgment debt, and the judgment debtors also refused its return. Respondent attributed his failure to enforce the writ to a lack of manpower resources.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Ariel R. Pascasio is administratively liable for Grave Abuse of Authority, Dishonesty, and Malfeasance in the Performance of Public Functions, specifically for violating procedural rules in the implementation of court writs and for dereliction of duty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that respondent violated Section 9 (now Section 10) of Rule 141 and Section 14 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. His act of demanding and receiving ₱1,500 and ₱6,000 from complainant without following the proper procedure—where estimated expenses must be approved by the court and deposited with the Clerk of Court—constituted an unlawful exaction. His failure to fully implement the writ of possession within 30 days and to make periodic reports to the court amounted to dereliction of duty. Additionally, receiving ₱210,000 from the judgment debtors without court approval and without depositing it with the Clerk of Court was a clear violation of the rules, as sheriffs are not allowed to receive voluntary payments from parties during duty performance. The Court affirmed the OCA’s evaluation, holding respondent guilty of Dishonesty, Dereliction of Duty, and violation of Rules 39 and 141. However, since respondent had previously been dismissed from service in a prior administrative case (Musngi v. Pascasio), the penalty of dismissal could no longer be imposed. Instead, the Court fined him Forty Thousand Pesos (₱40,000), to be deducted from any benefits due him.