A.M. No. P-12-3087; September 24, 2012
Dionisio P. Pilot, Petitioner, vs. Renato B. Baron, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 264, Pasig City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Dionisio P. Pilot, the judgment obligee in a civil case, filed a letter-complaint charging respondent Sheriff Renato B. Baron with grave misconduct. The charge stemmed from the sheriff’s failure to conduct an auction sale of levied property despite receiving ₱15,000.00 from the complainant for publication expenses to implement a writ of execution. After levying the property, the sheriff scheduled the auction sale for September 3, 2007, but it did not proceed due to alleged lack of publication. The sale was reset several times but was ultimately canceled because the complainant refused to heed the sheriff’s additional demand for ₱18,000.00. Furthermore, the sheriff instructed the complainant to accept ₱500,000.00 from the judgment obligors’ daughter—an amount below the judgment debt—and offered to deliver it for a 2.5% sheriff’s fee. He also solicited money from the complainant for cellphone load and transportation expenses.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Renato B. Baron is administratively liable for his actions and omissions in relation to the implementation of the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, the respondent sheriff is administratively liable. The Court found the complaint meritorious. Sheriffs have a purely ministerial duty to execute final judgments with due care and utmost diligence, acting as agents of the law, not of the parties. Respondent’s failure to submit his comment and pay the fines imposed by the Court constituted an implied admission of the charges and a disregard of his duty to obey court orders.
Evaluating the records, the Court found sufficient basis for the charges. Respondent sheriff failed to comply with the procedural requirements for an execution sale under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court after receiving the ₱15,000.00. More egregiously, he unlawfully collected and pocketed this amount intended for publication, solicited additional unauthorized payments, and attempted to settle the judgment for a lower amount without justification. He also violated the proper procedure for collecting execution expenses under Rule 141, which requires court approval, deposit with the clerk of court, and liquidation. His actions constituted dishonesty and grave misconduct, as well as a violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which prohibits receiving tips from parties. For these grave offenses, and considering his previous dismissal from service in another case, the Court imposed a fine of ₱40,000.00 to be deducted from his accrued leave credits.