GR 176783; (June, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 176783 ; June 27, 2012
ELIZABETH DIMAANO, Petitioner, vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) confiscated cash and items from petitioner Elizabeth Dimaano’s house in 1986, believing them to be ill-gotten wealth. The Sandiganbayan subsequently dismissed the forfeiture case against her and ordered the Republic to return the seized assets, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. Following a writ of execution, the Bureau of Treasury released a check to Dimaano.
The Sandiganbayan, however, assessed Dimaano a sheriff’s percentage collection fee pursuant to the Revised Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. Dimaano filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the fee was unwarranted as it applied only to collectibles or unsatisfied debts, not to the return of money illegally taken. She contended the assessment was iniquitous, penalizing her as the wronged party. The Sandiganbayan denied her motion, holding the fee was based on the fact of collection, not the nature of the case.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan rightfully assessed a sheriff’s percentage collection fee on the money returned to Dimaano pursuant to a writ of execution.
RULING
Yes, the Sandiganbayan’s assessment was proper. The Court rejected Dimaano’s distinction between money “collected” from a judgment debtor and money “returned” after unlawful taking. The imposition is not a penalty but a fee for the sheriff’s service in executing the court order for the benefit of the winning party, authorized under Rule 141, Section 10.
The Court ruled that both an order to pay a debt and an order to return unlawfully taken money constitute awards of actual or compensatory damages for a proven pecinary loss. The recipient benefits from the court’s intervention and the sheriff’s service in securing the amount. The determinative factor for the fee is the fact that the court, through valid processes, ordered a sum of money to be placed in the sheriff’s custody for turnover. The Sandiganbayan correctly held that since the rule does not distinguish between “money collected” and “money returned,” neither should the courts.
The Court also noted Dimaano’s separate claim for interest on the amount was not appealable, as she did not appeal the Sandiganbayan decision that ordered only the return without interest. The resolutions of the Sandiganbayan were affirmed.