Sheriff's Duty to Properly Handle and Liquidate Funds in Court-Ordered Actions

The Supreme Court recently reminded all sheriffs of their strict duty to follow the proper procedure for handling funds in court-ordered actions. In Serdoncillo v. Lanzaderas (A.M. No. P-16-3424, August 7, 2017), the Court ruled that a sheriff who directly received money from a party-litigant for demolition expenses, without depositing it with the Clerk of Court and rendering a liquidation, committed simple misconduct. The ruling clarifies the mandatory rules under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court and serves as a warning to all court personnel who handle litigants' money.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose from a demolition order in Civil Case No. 6677 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, General Santos City. Complainant Gloria Serdoncillo, representing the plaintiff, accused Sheriff Nestor M. Lanzaderas of several irregularities, including:

• Receiving Php 172,600.00 directly from the plaintiff for demolition expenses without depositing the amount with the Clerk of Court
• Failing to liquidate the expenses he received
• Misleading occupants about the nature of a court order
• Accusing the complainant's staff of stealing steel bars from the demolition site

Sheriff Lanzaderas admitted receiving the money but claimed the plaintiff's counsel requested the direct payment arrangement for convenience. He also argued that the court had approved the estimated expenses of Php 222,600.00.

The Mandatory Rule on Sheriff's Expenses

The Supreme Court anchored its ruling on Sections 9 and 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. These provisions establish a clear, non-negotiable procedure:

1. The sheriff estimates the expenses for implementing a writ
2. The court approves the estimated amount
3. The interested party deposits the amount with the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff
4. The Clerk of Court disburses the funds to the assigned deputy sheriff
5. The 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 must be refunded to the party who made the deposit

The Court emphasized that the word "shall" in these provisions makes compliance compulsory. The sheriff's failure to follow these steps constitutes misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

Why Direct Payment Is Never Allowed

The Court was categorical: the rules do not allow direct payment of sheriff's expenses from the interested party to the sheriff. Even if the party voluntarily offers the money, and even if the sheriff spends it entirely for lawful purposes, the acceptance of any amount outside the court-approved sheriff's fees is improper.

The Court explained that accepting voluntary payments creates suspicion of improper motives. A sheriff cannot unilaterally demand sums from a party-litigant without following the proper procedural steps, as this could amount to dishonesty or extortion. The consent of the plaintiff to the irregular arrangement does not absolve the sheriff from liability.

The Ruling: Simple Misconduct

The Court found Sheriff Lanzaderas liable for simple misconduct, defined as a transgression of an established rule of action, unlawful behavior, or negligence by a public officer. The Court did not find him guilty of grave misconduct because there was no substantial evidence that his acts were corrupt or intended to violate the law.

Since it was the sheriff's first offense, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to one month's salary instead of suspension, noting that suspension would leave his work unattended. The Court sternly warned that a repeat of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Deposit, don't collect. Sheriffs must never receive execution expenses directly from litigants. All amounts must be deposited with the Clerk of Court, who then disburses them to the assigned sheriff.
• Liquidation is mandatory. Sheriffs must account for all expenses and submit a full report with their return. Unspent amounts must be refunded to the party who made the deposit.
• Consent does not cure non-compliance. Even if a party agrees to a direct payment arrangement, the sheriff remains liable for violating Rule 141.
• Only court-approved fees are allowed. Sheriffs may receive only the fees fixed by the Rules of Court. Any other amount, even if used for lawful purposes, is improper.
• Sheriffs are fiduciaries. As officers of the court, sheriffs must conduct themselves with honesty and integrity, as their actions directly affect public trust in the judiciary.

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