G.R. No. A.M. No. P-11-2896; August 2, 2011
PROSERPINA V. ANICO, Complainant, vs. EMERSON B. PILIPIÑA, Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Proserpina V. Anico was a plaintiff in Civil Case No. 02-27454. A decision was rendered in her favor on September 16, 2004, and a Writ of Execution was issued on August 10, 2007. The writ was assigned to respondent Sheriff Emerson B. Pilipiña for implementation. Complainant alleged that in September 2007, respondent demanded ₱5,000.00 for expenses, and she gave ₱3,000.00 through her sister-in-law. In April 2008, after follow-ups on the unimplemented writ, respondent again demanded ₱2,000.00 for gasoline expenses, which complainant sent via “Kuarta Padala.” On August 27, 2008, complainant learned from the court that respondent had made no return of the writ after one year, prompting her to file an administrative complaint for extortion and neglect of duty.
In his defense, respondent denied demanding or receiving ₱5,000.00 or ₱3,000.00 but admitted receiving ₱1,500.00 via “Kuarta Padala” to defray transportation and other expenses. He justified this by claiming it was “judicial knowledge” that winning litigants shoulder such expenses. He explained his failure to make a timely return by stating he was actively trying to locate the defendants, who were seafarers with no permanent address, and that he submitted a Sheriff’s Report on September 9, 2008. He also claimed to have served the writ and notices, attempted garnishment, and continued his efforts even after the complaint was filed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Emerson B. Pilipiña is administratively liable for dishonesty and gross neglect of duty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of dishonesty and gross neglect of duty. The Supreme Court found that respondent violated Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which requires a sheriff to: (1) prepare an estimate of expenses for court approval; (2) have the interested party deposit the approved amount with the Clerk of Court; (3) render an accounting; and (4) issue official receipts. Respondent’s direct receipt of money from complainant without court approval and without issuing receipts constituted dishonesty. His failure to make a timely return of the writ for nearly a year, despite having served notices, and his submission of a report only after the complaint was filed, constituted gross neglect of duty. The Court rejected the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation of a one-year suspension. Considering the gravity of the offenses and that dishonesty is classified as a grave offense under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, warranting dismissal even for the first offense, and gross neglect of duty as an aggravating circumstance, the penalty of dismissal was imposed.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Respondent EMERSON B. PILIPIÑA, Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court of Manila, is found GUILTY of DISHONESTY and GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY and is ordered DISMISSED from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.