Sheriff's P70,000 Demand and 6-Month Delay: Supreme Court on Unauthorized Fees in Writ Execution

When a court issues a writ of execution, the sheriff's job is ministerial: implement it promptly and follow strict procedural rules. In Spouses Cailipan v. Castañeda (OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4148-P, February 10, 2016), the Supreme Court reminded sheriffs that collecting fees directly from winning litigants—even with their consent—is prohibited, and delaying execution to wait for payment constitutes grave misconduct.

The Facts

The complainants won an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 40187) before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, which ordered the defendants to vacate their property. The Regional Trial Court affirmed the decision, and a writ of execution was issued on January 31, 2013, commanding Sheriff Lorenzo O. Castañeda to enforce the judgment.

For six months, the sheriff did nothing despite repeated follow-ups. The writ was implemented only after the complainants gave him P70,000.00, evidenced by a handwritten receipt, supposedly for hiring policemen to assist in the execution. When execution finally happened, the sheriff merely transferred the defendants to two other vacant units on the property—and no policemen actually assisted him.

The Issue

Was the sheriff administratively liable for receiving the P70,000.00 directly and for the six-month delay in implementing the writ of execution?

The Ruling

The Supreme Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that the sheriff was liable for grave misconduct and for soliciting and accepting money in the course of official duty.

Direct payment to sheriffs is prohibited

Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court prescribes the exact procedure for sheriff's expenses in executing writs:

1. The sheriff must prepare and submit an estimate of expenses to the court;
2. The court must approve the estimate;
3. The interested party deposits the approved amount with the Clerk of Court (who is also the ex-officio sheriff);
4. The Clerk of Court disburses the amount to the executing sheriff;
5. The sheriff liquidates expenses within the period for rendering a return on the writ; and
6. Any unspent amount is refunded to the depositing party.

The Court emphasized that sheriffs are not authorized to receive direct payments from a winning party. All amounts must pass through the Clerk of Court. The sheriff never denied receiving the P70,000.00, offered only a vague explanation that he was "hoodwinked," and submitted no liquidation to the court.

Even if the payment was voluntary or the amount reasonable, the Court held, citing Bernabe v. Eguia (459 Phil. 97 [2003]), that such acceptance is improper. Reasonableness is not a defense where the Rule 141 procedure was ignored. Any amount received in violation of the rule constitutes unauthorized fees and amounts to dishonesty and extortion.

The Court also noted that the sheriff's receipt of money violated the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which forbids court employees from receiving tips or remuneration for assisting parties in court proceedings. The specific issuance number for this Code is not available in the ASG law library, but the decision itself identifies this as a prohibited act. This is a grave offense under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, punishable by outright dismissal even for the first offense.

Delay in execution is gross neglect

Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court requires sheriffs to report to the court within 30 days if a judgment cannot be satisfied in full, and to make periodic reports every 30 days until satisfaction. The sheriff offered no explanation for the six-month delay.

The Court inferred that he was waiting for money from the complainants. Citing Mendoza v. Tuquero (412 Phil. 435 [2001]), the Court reiterated that sheriffs have no discretion on whether to implement a writ. It is a ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness. Failure to implement a writ promptly, follow established rules, and submit required reports constitutes gross neglect and gross inefficiency.

The Court ordered the return of the P70,000.00 with interest, under pain of contempt. Since the sheriff had already been dismissed in a prior case (A.M. No. P-11-3017), the complaint was considered closed and terminated, with the decision attached to his records.

Practical Takeaways

• Never pay a sheriff directly. Deposit all execution expenses with the Clerk of Court, who disburses to the executing sheriff. A sheriff demanding direct payment is violating Rule 141.
• Demand a court-approved estimate. The sheriff must secure court approval of estimated expenses before any deposit is made. No approval, no payment.
• Require liquidation. The sheriff must liquidate expenses and refund any unspent amount. Absent liquidation, the receipt of money is unauthorized.
• A writ of execution is ministerial. Sheriffs must act promptly, without waiting for follow-ups or financial inducements. Delays beyond 30 days require a report to the court.
• Voluntary payment is no defense. Even if a litigant willingly pays a sheriff directly, the sheriff remains administratively liable for violating the rules.

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