One of the functions of Court Sheriffs is to serve and execute writs addressed to them by the court for the satisfaction of a judgment. But in doing so they must follow the procedure set forth by the Rules of Court, (Section 9, Rule 39). Otherwise they may be held administratively liable like in this case of AR who is a Court Sheriff for 12 years already.
The judgment to be executed here was rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a criminal case for Falsification of Public Document which issued a writ of execution to enforce the civil liability of the convicted accused Frank and Doming who were ordered, among others, to pay an old lady, Lorna, the victim of the falsification, the sum of P30,000 as damages.
In executing the decision, AR first collected from Doming who went to his office on September 6, 2006, the sum of P13,000 for which he issued only a handwritten provisional receipt. On the same day. AR went to Lorna’s house, which was just adjacent to Doming’s house, to give her the amount but the latter was not around. So AR returned the next day and gave her the money.
Subsequently, on November 29, 2006 and December 29, 2006, Doming gave AR the sums of P4,500 and P2,000 respectively for which AR again issued only provisional receipts. This time however, AR did not immediately remit the amount to Lorna. It was only after Lorna wrote the Judge several months later complaining about the non-receipt of said amounts that AR gave Lorna the P4,500 and the P2,000 as required by the Judge.
By that time however Doming had already filed an administrative complaint against AR denouncing AR’s unethical conduct in implementing the writ of execution issued by the Judge in the said criminal case. Doming told the Judge that AR did not issue Official Receipts for the money he gave AR.
AR admitted that he issued provisional receipts only and did not remit the money he collected to the Office of the Clerk of Court. He said he gave it directly to Lorna to spare the latter, who was already very old, the inconvenience of still filing a motion for the release of the money. He pointed out that such procedure was practical and he had followed it in other cases assigned to him for execution in 12 years that he has been Sheriff. Should AR be still held administratively liable?
Yes. When Lorna (the judgment obligee) was not present at the time Doming (the judgment obligor) made payments, AR the Sheriff was indeed authorized to receive them. However, the money received must be remitted to the clerk of court within the same day, or if not practicable, deposited in a fiduciary account with the nearest government depository bank. Sheriffs are not allowed to retain the money in their possession beyond the day when the payment was made or deliver the money directly to the judgment obligee.
AR’s excuse for not turning over the money to the clerk of court cannot be accepted. Firstly, Doming could have directly made the payment to Lorna or her representative. Secondly, considering that the first payment was handed to him in his office, AR could have easily turned it over to the clerk of court. AR may have been motivated by a noble intention when he directly gave the P13,000 to Lorna but the same cannot be said of the two succeeding payments. Lorna had to complain to the Judge first before AR delivered the money to her.
Good faith on the part of AR or lack of it in proceeding to properly execute his mandate would be of no moment, for he is chargeable with the knowledge that being an officer of the court, he should set the example by faithfully observing and not brazenly disregarding the Rules of Court.
Moreover, AR merely issued handwritten acknowledgment receipts to Doming. This act constitutes a violation of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual (Section 113, Article III Chapter V) which requires issuance of Official Receipts (ORs).
Accordingly, AR is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for not following the proper procedure in enforcing writs of execution which is a grave offense punishable by suspension ranging from 6 months to one year. So AR should be suspended for one year without pay with a stern warning that a repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely (Pena, Jr. vs. Regalado II, A.M. P-10-2772. February 10, 2010, 512 SCRA 536).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. 1 and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net