A.M. No. P-87-100 February 12, 1997
Felisa Elic Vda. de Abellera, complainant, vs. Nemesio N. Dalisay, Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9 Balayan, Batangas, respondent.

FACTS

The administrative case originated from the execution of a final judgment in Civil Case No. 1546, where complainant Felisa Abellera was the prevailing party against Republic Planters Bank (RPB). On July 13, 1987, respondent Deputy Sheriff Nemesio Dalisay accompanied Abellera to the bank to collect the monetary award. The bank issued two manager’s checks: one for P285,648.66 payable to Abellera, and another for P30,000.00 payable directly to Dalisay. Respondent informed complainant that this P30,000.00 represented his 10% sheriff’s fee, allegedly agreed upon with her counsel, Atty. Pedro Belmi. Complainant, unaware of the proper rules, was persuaded to sign the corresponding receipts.
Subsequently, Abellera discovered that her lawyer denied any such agreement and protested that the fee was excessive and improperly charged against her as the prevailing party. She also alleged respondent received an additional P30,000.00 from the bank. This prompted her to file a complaint-affidavit charging respondent with dishonesty and irregularities. The case was referred for investigation, where respondent failed to present any evidence in his defense. The investigating judge found the act of charging the prevailing party highly irregular.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Nemesio Dalisay is administratively liable for dishonesty in collecting sheriff’s fees.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of dishonesty. The legal logic is anchored on the improper and excessive collection of fees contrary to the Rules of Court. Under Section 10(g), Rule 142, lawful fees for service of process are considered costs of litigation, which are generally awarded to the prevailing party. Thus, it was highly irregular for respondent to deduct his fees directly from complainant’s award absent a court order assessing costs against her. Even assuming fees were chargeable to complainant, the amount taken was exorbitant. Rule 141 prescribes a sheriff’s fee for money collected via execution at 4% on the first P4,000 and 2% on the excess. Respondent’s demand for a 10% fee was therefore excessive.
The Court emphasized that sheriffs, being frontline court personnel in close contact with litigants, must conduct themselves in a manner upholding the judiciary’s integrity. Respondent betrayed the trust reposed in him and failed to meet the stringent standards of his office. Consequently, the Court ordered him to pay a P5,000.00 fine and to return the P30,000.00 to complainant, with a stern warning for future infractions. The allegation of an additional P30,000.00 payment was not substantiated in the findings.