Sheriffs' Duties and Liabilities: Proper Handling of Sheriff's Fees and Liquidation

The Supreme Court's 2010 resolution in Garcia v. Montejar (A.M. No. P-10-2860) serves as a clear reminder to all sheriffs and process servers: the rules on sheriff's expenses are strict, and shortcuts can result in administrative liability. The case arose from a complaint filed by the Rural Bank of Guihulngan against Sheriff Ricky Montejar of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, for irregularities in implementing writs of execution in six civil cases where the bank was the plaintiff.

The Facts of the Case

The complainant bank accused Sheriff Montejar of several irregularities. First, in Civil Case No. 352, he received P7,000.00 as sheriff's fee without a court-approved estimate of expenses and failed to attach receipts to support his liquidation report. Second, he failed to submit liquidation reports for expenses incurred in Civil Cases No. 01-7-135 and No. 375. Third, he failed to fully execute writs of execution in five civil cases.

In his defense, the sheriff claimed the writs were returned unexecuted or partially executed because the defendants no longer had properties. He admitted, however, that his liquidation report in Civil Case No. 352 was not supported by receipts because he lost them. He also admitted giving P1,000.00 of the sheriff's expenses to another sheriff who assisted him, instead of using the amount to implement the writ.

The Issue

The central question was whether Sheriff Montejar violated the rules on sheriff's expenses and liquidation, and if so, what administrative liability should attach.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found Sheriff Montejar guilty of simple misconduct and imposed a fine of P20,000.00, to be deducted from the benefits due to his estate (he died during the pendency of the case).

The Court anchored its ruling on Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which prescribes the proper procedure for sheriff's expenses:

1. The sheriff estimates the expenses to be incurred in executing the writ.
2. The court approves the estimated amount.
3. The interested party deposits the approved amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff — not directly with the sheriff.
4. The clerk of court disburses the amount to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process.
5. The deputy sheriff must liquidate the expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the process.
6. The court approves the liquidation.
7. Any unspent amount is refunded to the party who made the deposit.

The Court emphasized that the rule does not allow direct payment of sheriff's expenses from the interested party to the sheriff. The word "shall" underscores the mandatory nature of these steps; there are no procedural shortcuts.

Why It Was Simple Misconduct, Not Grave Misconduct

The Court distinguished simple misconduct from grave misconduct. Grave misconduct requires substantial evidence that the acts were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. In this case, the records showed no corrupt motive. At most, the sheriff was "remiss in efficiently performing and discharging his duties as sheriff."

Still, the Court stressed that a sheriff is an officer of the court and the "front-line representative of the justice system." A sheriff who fails to comply with the standard of conduct of the office diminishes public faith in the Judiciary and may be subjected to administrative liability.

Practical Takeaways

• Never receive sheriff's expenses directly from a party. The approved amount must be deposited with the clerk of court, who then disburses it to the assigned deputy sheriff.
• Always secure a court-approved estimate of expenses first. Proceeding without one is a violation of Rule 141, even if the amount received is later accounted for.
• Keep receipts and supporting documents. A liquidation report without receipts is defective. Losing receipts is not a valid excuse.
• Liquidate within the prescribed period. Liquidation must be made within the same period for rendering a return on the process, and the court must approve it.
• Unspent amounts must be refunded. Any balance from the deposit belongs to the interested party, not to the sheriff.

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