Sheriffs Duty and Expense Advancement When a Writs Execution Hinges on Plaintiffs Action

In a 2001 administrative case, the Supreme Court reminded sheriffs that even when a prevailing party is eager to push a writ of execution forward, the rules on expense advancement cannot be set aside. The case of Tiongco v. Molina and Magat (A.M. No. P-00-1373, September 4, 2001) clarifies the line between a sheriff's duty to implement a writ and the proper procedure for handling execution expenses.

The Facts

Elizabeth Tiongco won an ejectment suit against her tenants, the spouses Dado. When the tenants failed to post a supersedeas bond on appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Laguna granted execution pending appeal. A writ of execution was issued on July 25, 1997, addressed to Sheriff Rogelio Molina, who assigned its implementation to Sheriff Arnel Magat.

During implementation, Magat asked Tiongco for P3,000.00 to cover police assistance and transportation for levying the tenants' property. She gave him P2,500.00. Magat then told her to leave the premises, saying he would handle everything. The next day, Tiongco learned that no property had been confiscated and that Magat had received a postdated check from the tenants. The writ remained unimplemented, and the tenants eventually left the unit.

The Issue

The central question was whether Sheriff Magat committed dereliction of duty and dishonesty by personally receiving money from the complainant for execution expenses, and whether Sheriff Molina, who assigned the writ, shared any liability.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against Sheriff Molina, finding he had no participation in the implementation. The assignment to Magat was approved by the presiding judge.

As to Magat, the Court found him guilty of dereliction of duty and negligence, though not dishonesty. The Court held that Magat overstepped his authority when he asked for and personally received P2,500.00 from Tiongco. The fact that the money was allegedly used for the writ's implementation was "of no moment." Being an officer of the court, Magat should have known the well-defined steps in the Rules of Court.

The Rule on Sheriff's Expenses

The Court restated the procedure under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. The sheriff must estimate the expenses for serving or executing a process. Upon court approval of that estimate, the interested party deposits the amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff. The clerk then disburses the amount to the sheriff assigned, subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process. Any unspent amount must be refunded to the depositing party.

Magat ignored this procedure. The money was not deposited with the clerk of court, and there was no showing of prior court approval. He also failed to properly liquidate the expenses and left the disbursement to a court utility worker. The Court emphasized that a sheriff should not accept money directly from a party, much less request it.

Practical Takeaways

• Deposit, never collect. A sheriff cannot personally receive execution expenses from a party. The money must be deposited with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff after court approval of the sheriff's estimate.
• Get court approval first. The sheriff's estimated expenses must be approved by the court before any deposit is made.
• Liquidate and refund. The sheriff must liquidate expenses within the period for rendering a return, and any unspent amount must be refunded to the party who made the deposit.
• Assignment does not shield liability. A sheriff who assigns a writ to a co-sheriff with judicial approval may avoid liability, but the assigned sheriff bears full responsibility for compliance with the rules.
• For litigants. A party asked by a sheriff to pay expenses directly should insist on the deposit procedure under Rule 141, Section 9, to avoid complications and protect their rights.

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