AM P 93 976; (May, 1995) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-93-976. May 31, 1995. Menchie Punzalan-Santos, complainant, vs. Napoleon I. Arquiza, Deputy Sheriff, RTC, Br. 37, Manila, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Menchie Punzalan-Santos obtained a favorable judgment for support in Civil Case No. 92-61603. On September 6, 1993, respondent Deputy Sheriff Napoleon I. Arquiza served a Notice of Garnishment at the defendant’s workplace. After the service, complainant gave respondent P200.00 for taxi fare. Respondent allegedly became angry, demanding to know if she was unaware of the sheriff’s “patakaran” (policy) and insisting on a 5% to 20% share of collections, even requesting a P1,000.00 cash advance despite no money having been collected yet. Complainant felt compelled to promise him P300.00 the next day.
Perturbed, complainant sought assistance, leading to an NBI entrapment operation on September 7, 1993. Marked money was used, and respondent was arrested outside his court while counting the bills handed by the complainant. The NBI subsequently filed a criminal case for violation of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft Act). In his comment, respondent denied extortion, claiming he had advanced expenses and that his remarks, including the Ilocano word “ukinam,” were made in jest. He also submitted an affidavit of desistance from the complainant.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Napoleon I. Arquiza is administratively liable for his conduct in relation to the execution of the writ.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found the complaint meritorious, rejecting respondent’s defenses. His claim that the entrapment resulted from the complainant’s personal frustrations was deemed unworthy of credence. More critically, his demand for a P1,000.00 cash advance was a clear violation of the rules governing sheriff’s fees.
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court strictly prescribes the fees a sheriff may collect. For money collected through execution, a sheriff is entitled only to a statutory percentage (4% on the first P4,000.00, 2% thereafter), payable only upon successful collection. Expenses for serving writs must be estimated, approved by the court, deposited with the clerk of court, and liquidated. Respondent’s direct solicitation of a cash advance from the complainant, prior to any collection and without court approval, was a blatant disregard of this procedure. His actions constituted grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The affidavit of desistance could not absolve him of administrative liability, as the offense was against the judiciary’s integrity. Accordingly, the Court dismissed respondent from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.