Sheriff Fined for Overstepping Authority in Writ Implementation and Expense Handling

A sheriff's duty in implementing court writs is ministerial, not discretionary. When Sheriff Arthur G. Calo of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Butuan City, gave occupants three months to vacate a property—instead of the three days the Rules require—and then failed to file timely returns and observe proper expense procedures, the Supreme Court held him liable for neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming a court employee.

The case arose from a complaint filed by the counsels of the Rural Bank of Cabadbaran (Agusan), Inc., who alleged that Calo committed grave abuse of authority, falsification, arrogance, grave misconduct, and gross dishonesty in implementing a writ of possession in Special Proceeding No. 4808.

The Facts

After a writ of possession was issued on 12 January 2011 commanding Calo to place the bank in possession of a property, the complainants delivered P1,000 to the sheriff for implementation expenses. Despite repeated letters from the complainants—on 25 January, 14 February, and 3 March 2011—Calo neither coordinated with them nor submitted an estimate of expenses or a sheriff's report.

When the complainants finally obtained a copy of the Sheriff's Report on their own initiative, they discovered it was dated 18 February 2011 but filed only on 4 March 2011. The registry receipt was undated, and the complainants received the report only on 17 March 2011.

The report revealed that Calo had served the writ on 24 January 2011 but gave the occupants three months to vacate for "humanitarian reasons." On 25 April 2011, without waiting for resolution of a motion to inhibit him, Calo implemented the writ, refused to coordinate with the complainants' counsel, and later demanded P1,000 from the bank manager, which she gave under pressure.

The Issue

The central issue was whether Calo violated the Rules of Court in implementing the writ of possession and whether the penalty recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)—a P10,000 fine—was appropriate.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA that Calo was liable for neglect of duty but increased the penalty. The Court found Calo guilty of neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming a court employee, imposing a fine of P20,000, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

Violations of Rule 39

The Court cited Section 10(c) and (d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which require a sheriff to demand that occupants vacate property within three working days and to remove improvements only upon special court order. Calo's grant of a three-month grace period was a clear overstep.

The Court also cited Section 14, Rule 39, which mandates sheriffs to make a return on the writ within thirty days from receipt and every thirty days thereafter until the judgment is satisfied. Calo failed to file his return on time, violating this mandatory duty.

Violations of Rule 141

The Court found that Calo also violated Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. This provision requires sheriffs to:

• Prepare an estimate of expenses for implementing a writ
• Secure the court's approval of that estimate
• Render an accounting within the same period for making a return
• Issue an official receipt for amounts received

Calo accepted P1,000 without court approval, made an accounting only after four months, and demanded another P1,000 on the day of implementation without following proper procedure. The Court stressed that sheriffs cannot receive voluntary payments from parties without observing procedural steps.

Conduct Unbecoming a Court Employee

The Court also faulted Calo for his persistent refusal to coordinate with the complainants despite four attempts to communicate with him, and for refusing to allow the bank manager to inform counsel of the implementation. This conduct fell short of the exacting standards required of court personnel, who must avoid any impression of impropriety or negligence.

Practical Takeaways

• Sheriffs have no discretion in implementing writs. Their functions are purely ministerial, and they must follow the Rules of Court to the letter.
• Three days, not three months. Under Section 10(c), Rule 39, occupants must vacate within three working days. Extensions require court authority.
• Timely returns are mandatory. Sheriffs must file returns within thirty days of receiving a writ and every thirty days thereafter until satisfaction.
• Expense procedures are non-negotiable. Sheriffs must obtain court approval for estimated expenses, render proper accounting, and issue receipts. Voluntary payments do not excuse non-compliance.
• Retirement does not shield liability. Even after compulsory retirement, fines may be deducted from benefits due.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.