OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4148-P. February 10, 2016
SPS. JOSE AND MELINDA CAILIPAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. LORENZO O. CASTAÑEDA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 96, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainants, the prevailing plaintiffs in an unlawful detainer case, secured a writ of execution to oust the defendants from a specific apartment unit (Unit 33-C) they owned. They alleged that respondent Sheriff Lorenzo O. Castañeda delayed the writ’s implementation for six months. The execution proceeded only after complainants gave him P70,000.00, for which he issued a handwritten receipt purportedly for police assistance expenses. During implementation, the sheriff merely transferred the defendants to the complainants’ two other vacant and locked apartment units on the same property instead of effecting a full eviction. Complainants also claimed no policemen were actually present to assist.
In his defense, respondent sheriff denied instigating the transfer, insisting the other units were not vacant and were outside the writ’s specific scope for “33-C.” He admitted receiving the money but claimed the complainants “hoodwinked” him into acknowledging it for their office liquidation. He argued that sheriffs could discreetly deploy police and accused the complainants of harassment, noting they had also filed a criminal case against him.

ISSUE

Whether respondent sheriff is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent sheriff administratively liable. The legal logic centers on the clear violation of procedural rules governing sheriffs’ duties and ethical standards. Under Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, sheriffs must estimate execution expenses for court approval, with the interested party depositing the amount with the clerk of court for proper disbursement and liquidation. By directly soliciting and accepting P70,000.00 from the complainants without court approval and without issuing an official receipt or liquidating the amount, respondent sheriff committed gross misconduct. This act constituted soliciting a gift or valuable consideration in the course of official duty.
Furthermore, his implementation of the writ was improper. While the writ specified only Unit 33-C, his action of transferring the defendants to other units on the same property, which were also owned by the complainants and subject to the same detainer case’s objective to recover possession, constituted negligence and abuse of authority. It defeated the purpose of the execution. Sheriffs must execute writs diligently and faithfully; any deviation, especially one benefiting the losing party at the expense of the judgment creditor, undermines the integrity of the judicial process. The Court emphasized that sheriffs, as officers of the court, must maintain the judiciary’s prestige. However, as the respondent had already been dismissed from service in a separate administrative case (A.M. No. P-11-3017), the instant complaint was deemed moot and terminated. The Court also noted that the improperly solicited amount should be returned under pain of contempt.