AM P 94 1069; (November, 1994) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-94-1069. November 9, 1994. JUDGE HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, complainant, vs. JOHN C. RAMOS, Deputy Sheriff, respondent.
FACTS:
This administrative case originated from Civil Case No. Br. 24-0273, where the trial court ordered plaintiff Lorenzo Lazaro to reconvey a property to the defendant church upon reimbursement and to pay the costs of suit. After the decision became final, a writ of execution was issued. Respondent Deputy Sheriff John C. Ramos computed the costs of suit himself, arriving at an amount of P29,880.00. Upon Lazaro’s failure to pay, Ramos levied upon and sold Lazaro’s two parcels of land at public auction to satisfy these costs.
The trial court, through Judge Henedino P. Eduarte, later annulled the writ of execution and the sheriff’s sale. The court found that the sheriff had no authority to unilaterally compute the costs, which should have been taxed by the clerk of court upon motion of the prevailing party under Rule 142 of the Rules of Court. The court also noted that Ramos received P5,000.00 from the plaintiff, which was paid to the court interpreter, under the guise of defraying execution expenses. Judge Eduarte forwarded the order to the Supreme Court as a complaint for grave misconduct against Ramos.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff John C. Ramos is administratively liable for misconduct for unilaterally computing and enforcing the payment of costs of suit and for improperly receiving money from a party.
RULING
Yes, respondent is liable for misconduct. The Supreme Court emphasized that a sheriff’s functions in the execution of judgments are purely ministerial. Rule 142, Section 8 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that in superior courts, costs shall be taxed by the clerk of court, not by the sheriff. By arrogating unto himself the power to compute the costs, Ramos overstepped his authority and violated the rules. Furthermore, his act of receiving P5,000.00 from the plaintiff, purportedly for execution expenses, contravened the legal fees prescribed under Rule 141, Section 9. His claim of good faith, given his 22 years in service, is untenable as he is presumed to know the limits of his duties. The Court held that such actions constitute misconduct, eroding public trust in the judiciary. Accordingly, Ramos was fined P2,000.00 with a stern warning.