G.R. No. A.M. No. P-20-4090 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-4826-P), March 16, 2021
Bryan T. Malabanan, Complainant, vs. Reuel P. Ruiz, Sheriff IV, Branch 84, Regional Trial Court, Malolos City, Bulacan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Bryan T. Malabanan, a Paralegal Officer of UCPB Savings Bank, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Sheriff Reuel P. Ruiz for grave misconduct and violation of Republic Act No. 6713 . The complaint arose from an extra-judicial foreclosure proceeding (EJF No. 28-2018) involving 98 property titles, where UCPB was declared the highest bidder at the auction sale conducted by respondent. After the sale, respondent gave complainant a “Billing for Sheriff’s Fee” stating “ninety-eight (98) Titles” at “Five thousand (P5,000.00) per Title,” with a note: “The subject amount is based on the prevailing amount being paid by any Petitioner,” amounting to P490,000.00. Complainant alleged this billing was unconscionable, without legal basis, and not approved by the court as required by Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, constituting improper solicitation. In his defense, respondent admitted issuing the billing but claimed it was merely a “guide” for UCPB to estimate the fee, which he asserted was a “common practice by Banks being tolerated.” He argued no specific amount was demanded, and the fee was subject to the bank’s discretion and subsequent court approval.

ISSUE

Whether respondent committed improper solicitation in violation of Section 50(A)(10) of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of soliciting money, a grave offense punishable by dismissal. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The Court held that respondent’s billing was an attempt to solicit money, as it contained all necessary details for complainant to conclude payment was expected, with the total easily computed as P490,000.00. The billing had no legal basis; under A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 and Section 10 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, the only authorized fee after an auction sale is a percentage-based commission on the amount collected, not a per-title fee. The Court emphasized that sheriffs must strictly adhere to prescribed legal fees and procedures, and any estimated expenses require prior court approval and deposit with the clerk of court. Respondent’s claim of a “tolerated practice” and that the billing was merely a guide was rejected, as his own statements indicated a customary expectation of payment. The fact that no money was actually received did not exonerate him, as the act of solicitation itself is punishable. Respondent’s 24 years of service was not considered a mitigating circumstance, as his offense appeared not isolated. Accordingly, respondent was DISMISSED from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (excluding accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency or corporation.