When Sheriffs Cross the Line: Illegal Exaction, Neglect of Duty, and Administrative Liability

Sheriffs occupy a delicate position in the Philippine justice system. They are the officers who carry out court orders, seize property, and enforce judgments. Because they deal directly with litigants and their money, the rules governing their conduct are strict — and for good reason. In Solema v. Almeda-Fajardo (A.M. No. P-12-3098, October 3, 2023), the Supreme Court En Banc reminded sheriffs that shortcuts in collecting expenses or releasing seized property carry severe consequences.

The Case: A Sheriff's Unauthorized Actions

Reynaldo Solema was the private complainant in a criminal case involving two counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law). The trial court acquitted the accused of the criminal charges but ordered her to pay Solema P55,000.00 as civil indemnity, plus interest. When the writ of execution was issued, Sheriff Ma. Consuelo Joie Almeda-Fajardo was tasked to implement it.

During implementation, Fajardo demanded and directly received P18,000.00 from Solema for alleged expenses. She then seized a Starex van from the judgment debtor's husband. But the very next day, she released the vehicle to the husband's brother — without any court order. Solema alleged that Fajardo released the van in exchange for P100,000.00, though this specific claim was not proven.

The Issue: What Rules Did the Sheriff Violate?

The central question was whether Fajardo should be held administratively liable for her actions in implementing the writ of execution. The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, finding her guilty of two counts of gross misconduct and one count of serious dishonesty.

The Rules on Sheriff's Expenses: No Shortcuts Allowed

The Court emphasized that sheriffs are expected to know the rules of procedure governing their functions. Under Rule 141, Section 10 of the Rules of Court, the procedure for sheriff's expenses is clear:

• The sheriff estimates the expenses and submits the estimate for court approval.
• Upon approval, the interested party deposits the amount with the clerk of court, who then disburses it to the sheriff.
• The sheriff must liquidate the amount within the same period for filing the return.
• Any unspent amount must be refunded.

Fajardo bypassed all of this. She directly demanded and received P18,000.00 from Solema without court approval and never liquidated the amount. The Court noted that the rules on sheriff's expenses "are clear cut and do not provide for procedural shortcuts." A sheriff's unilateral demand for money without following proper procedure "opens the door not only to suspicion of, but actual corruption."

The Rules on Third-Party Claims: No Unilateral Releases

Fajardo also claimed she released the van because a third party showed her documents proving ownership. But the Court found this explanation to be an "afterthought" — her own sheriff's report stated she returned the van because it was worth more than the amount to be collected.

More importantly, even if a third party had a valid claim, Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court provides the proper procedure: the third-party claimant must make an affidavit of title, serve it on the sheriff and the judgment obligee, and the judgment obligee must file a bond to indemnify the claimant. The sheriff cannot simply release seized property on her own.

The Penalty: PHP 300,000 Fine

Because Fajardo had already been dismissed from service in a prior case, the Court could not impose dismissal again. Instead, under Rule 140, Section 18 of the Rules of Court, it imposed fines: PHP 150,000.00 for the illegal collection and non-liquidation of expenses, and another PHP 150,000.00 for the unauthorized release of the seized vehicle — a total of PHP 300,000.00.

Practical Takeaways

• Sheriffs cannot collect fees directly from litigants. All sheriff's expenses must go through the clerk of court, with court-approved estimates and proper liquidation.
• Seized property cannot be released without court authority. Even if a third party claims ownership, the sheriff must follow Rule 39, Section 16 — requiring an affidavit and a bond — not personal judgment.
• Administrative liability is severe. Illegal exaction and neglect of duty can result in dismissal, forfeiture of benefits, and fines. Even if the sheriff has already been dismissed, fines may still be imposed.
• Sheriffs are held to a high standard. As officers of the court, they are expected to know and strictly follow procedural rules. Flagrant disregard of these rules constitutes gross misconduct.
• For litigants, documentation matters. Keep receipts and records of any payments made to sheriffs, as these can support an administrative complaint.

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