A.M. No. P-88-256 October 11, 1990
Rina V. Chua, complainant, vs. Edgardo D. Nuestro, Deputy Sheriff, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 6, Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rina V. Chua filed an administrative charge against Deputy Sheriff Edgardo D. Nuestro for allegedly delaying the enforcement of a writ of execution in an ejectment case after demanding and receiving P1,500.00 from her. The case was referred for investigation to Judge Bernardo P. Pardo. The investigation established that on September 12, 1988, upon issuance of the writ, complainant and her counsel, Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut, Jr., agreed to give respondent P1,000.00, aside from execution expenses, to immediately enforce the writ. Respondent received the P1,000.00 that day.
The following day, September 13, respondent appeared hesitant to proceed and, nearing lunchtime, asked for an additional P500.00, which was given. In the afternoon, respondent proceeded to the premises but was informed of a call from the judge. Upon returning the call, he was told not to proceed because a supersedeas bond had been filed. Nevertheless, at complainant’s insistence, they broke a padlock and entered a portion of the premises before counsel for the defendant arrived and presented the bond’s official receipt, leading to the discontinuation of the execution.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Edgardo D. Nuestro is administratively liable for his actions in relation to the enforcement of the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct warranting dismissal. The investigating judge found, by preponderance of evidence, that respondent received the total amount of P1,500.00 from the complainant and her lawyer as a consideration for the performance of his official duty to execute the writ. The Court emphasized that this payment was distinct from and in addition to the lawful sheriff’s fees and execution expenses. It constituted a bribe, a corrupt practice that undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
The Court agreed with the investigator’s conclusion that while a sheriff may exercise discretion in the timing of execution, especially when a supersedeas bond may still be filed, the act of soliciting and accepting money as a prerequisite for performing an official act is indefensible. Such conduct constitutes direct bribery, a grave offense reflecting moral turpitude. Accordingly, the Court resolved to DISMISS respondent Edgardo D. Nuestro from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits. Furthermore, the Court DIRECTED the City Prosecutor of Manila to investigate and potentially charge complainant Rina V. Chua and Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut, Jr. with corruption of a public official under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code, and REFERRED the matter concerning Atty. Yabut to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for disciplinary action.