A.M. No. P-10-2860; October 20, 2010
Renato Miguel D. Garcia, Complainant, vs. Ricky Montejar, Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, Respondent.

FACTS

The Rural Bank of Guihulngan, through its President Renato Miguel D. Garcia, filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Ricky Montejar for irregularities in implementing writs of execution in six civil cases. The bank alleged that Montejar received a ₱7,000 sheriff’s fee in Civil Case No. 352 without a court-approved estimate and failed to submit supporting receipts for its liquidation. He also failed to submit liquidation reports for expenses in two other cases and did not fully execute the writs in five cases, returning them as unenforced or partially executed.
In his Comment, Montejar denied the charges. He defended the enforcement attempts, attributing non-execution to defendants having no leviable properties. He admitted receiving the ₱7,000 directly from the bank but claimed he lost the receipts. For other cases, he argued that approved amounts were turned over to him due to a prior sheriff’s inhibition or that the bank itself failed to pay the court-approved expenses.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Ricky Montejar is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writs of execution.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of Simple Misconduct. The Court found that Montejar violated the mandatory procedure for sheriff’s expenses under Sections 9 and 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. The rules explicitly require a sheriff to first submit an estimate of expenses for court approval. Upon approval, the interested party deposits the amount with the clerk of court, who then disburses it to the sheriff. The sheriff must liquidate the expenses with supporting documents upon return of the writ. Any unspent amount must be refunded.
Montejar’s admission that he directly received ₱7,000 from the complainant bank constituted a clear breach of this procedure, which is designed to prevent impropriety. His failure to properly liquidate and substantiate expenses further demonstrated negligence in his official duties. However, the acts did not amount to Grave Misconduct, as there was no substantial evidence of corrupt intent or a persistent, willful disregard of the law. His liability stemmed from inefficiency and remissness. Considering the respondent had died during the pendency of the case, the Court modified the OCA’s recommended penalty. Instead of a fine equivalent to two months’ salary, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000.00), to be deducted from any death benefits due to his estate.