Sheriff’s Duty on Expense Handling: Strict Compliance With Court Rules to Prevent Misconduct

Executing a court writ is not simply a ministerial task. When the implementation requires expenses, sheriffs must follow the payment procedure set by the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court’s decision in Sundiang v. Bacho reminds court personnel that any shortcut in handling execution expenses creates liability — even if the sheriff claims the money was spent for legitimate purposes.

What the case was about

The case arose from a complaint for accion publiciana filed by spouses Rene and Nenita Castañeda against several defendants over a residential lot in Caloocan City. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and after appeals and a denial of the petition before the Supreme Court, the decision became final. The RTC issued a writ of execution, then a writ of demolition after the defendants refused to vacate.

Complainant Atty. Marcos R. Sundiang, counsel for the plaintiffs, charged Sheriff Erlito DS. Bacho with extortion, neglect of duty, and violation of Republic Act No. 3019. According to the complainant, the sheriff demanded ₱150,000.00 for the implementation of the demolition writ. The sheriff allegedly received ₱60,000.00 on November 23, 2004, ₱50,000.00 on December 10, 2004, and ₱40,000.00 around August 15, 2005. Despite the payments, the sheriff allegedly failed to fully remove the structures and place the plaintiffs in possession.

The sheriff admitted receiving ₱60,000.00 but denied demanding it for personal benefit. He said it was spent on the food and fees of laborers hired for the demolition and on security for the workers. He claimed he fully implemented the writ and delivered possession, but some defendants and unidentified persons later re-entered and reconstructed structures on the property.

The legal issue

The central issue was whether Sheriff Bacho should be administratively liable for receiving and spending money related to the writ’s implementation without following the procedure prescribed by the Rules of Court.

The controlling rule: Section 10, Rule 141

The Supreme Court emphasized that sheriffs must strictly comply with Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. The rule states that when sheriff’s expenses are needed to execute writs or safeguard property, the interested party shall pay the expenses in an amount estimated by the sheriff subject to the approval of the court.

Once approved, the interested party deposits the amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff. The clerk then disburses it to the sheriff assigned to enforce the process. The sheriff must later liquidate the amount, and the liquidation must be approved by the court. Any unspent amount must be refunded, and a full report must be submitted with the sheriff’s return.

In this case, none of these steps were followed. The sheriff did not submit an estimate to the court, did not ask for court approval, and did not advise the complainant that the approved expenses should be deposited with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff. No liquidation was ever submitted to the court.

Why the sheriff was held liable

The Court ruled that sheriffs are not allowed to receive voluntary payments from parties in the course of performing their duties. Nor can a sheriff request or ask money from a party-litigant without observing the proper procedural steps. Even assuming the payments were given and received in good faith, that fact alone would not dispel suspicion that such payments were made for less than noble purposes. A party’s acquiescence to the expenses does not absolve the sheriff from securing prior court approval.

Any amount received by a sheriff in excess of the lawful fees allowed under Section 10, Rule 141 is an unlawful exaction and constitutes unauthorized fees. It renders the sheriff liable for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The Court found Sheriff Bacho guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. It imposed a penalty of suspension from service without pay for six months and one day, a penalty within the range provided for the offense. The Court chose this rather than the one-year suspension recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator, considering the circumstances of the case and prevailing jurisprudence on first-time offenders of this nature. The sheriff was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Practical takeaways

• Sheriffs must prepare a written estimate of execution expenses and submit it to the court for approval before collecting any amount from the interested party.
• The approved amount must be deposited with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, not paid directly to the sheriff.
• Sheriffs must liquidate the expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the process, and the liquidation must be approved by the court.
• Any unspent amount must be refunded to the party who made the deposit.
• Directly requesting or accepting payment from a party without following Rule 141 exposes a sheriff to administrative liability, including suspension or dismissal.

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