Sheriff’s Fees in the Philippines: Rules, Limits, and the Abellera Case

Winning a court case should end the dispute — not begin a new one over excessive sheriff’s fees. In the Philippines, the fees that sheriffs may charge for executing judgments are fixed by the Rules of Court, and any amount beyond that schedule is irregular. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Felisa Elic Vda. de Abellera v. Nemesio N. Dalisay (A.M. No. P-87-100, February 12, 1997) illustrates what happens when a deputy sheriff oversteps those limits.

The Legal Framework for Sheriff’s Fees

Sheriff’s fees compensate sheriffs for services rendered in implementing court orders, such as serving summons, enforcing writs of execution, and conducting auctions. These fees are not discretionary — they are governed by the Rules of Court.

Under Section 9(1), Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, a sheriff who collects money by order, execution, attachment, or other judicial process is entitled to a fee of four percent (4%) on the first P4,000.00 and two percent (2%) on any amount in excess of P4,000.00.

For example, if a sheriff collects P10,000.00 through execution, the fee is computed as: 4% of P4,000.00 (P160.00) plus 2% of P6,000.00 (P120.00), for a total of P280.00. Any demand beyond this schedule is excessive.

Separately, Section 10(g), Rule 142 provides that lawful fees paid by the prevailing party for entering and docketing the action and for service of process are included in the costs of the suit. Under Section 1, Rule 142, costs are generally allowed to the prevailing party, unless the court orders otherwise. Critically, the sheriff cannot unilaterally deduct fees from a judgment award — a court order is required.

The Abellera Case: A Deputy Sheriff’s Overreach

The facts of Abellera are instructive. Felisa Abellera won a case against Republic Planters Bank and was awarded P317,387.40. Deputy Sheriff Nemesio Dalisay accompanied her to collect the award. Dalisay allegedly told Abellera that P30,000.00 — roughly 10% of the award — was his sheriff’s fee, and that her counsel had agreed to it. He also allegedly received another P30,000.00 from the bank.

When Abellera discovered that her lawyer had never agreed to the fee, she filed an administrative complaint for dishonesty.

The Supreme Court found Dalisay liable. It emphasized that it was highly irregular for the sheriff to deduct his fees from the award without a court order. Even assuming the fees were assessable against the complainant, the amount demanded was clearly excessive under the Rules of Court.

The Court also stressed the unique position of sheriffs, citing Punzalan-Santos v. Arquiza (244 SCRA 527, 535 [1995]): sheriffs are at the grassroots of the judicial machinery, in close contact with litigants, and their conduct must maintain the prestige and integrity of the court.

Why This Matters for Litigants

The Abellera ruling protects winning parties from being victimized twice — once by the losing party, and again by an overcharging court officer. It affirms that the sheriff’s fee is a regulated cost, not a negotiable commission.

For litigants, the practical takeaway is clear: a sheriff’s demand for a percentage of the judgment award, absent a court order, is a red flag. The proper course is to question the fee, seek legal advice, and, if necessary, file a complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator.

Practical Takeaways

• A court order is required before a sheriff may deduct fees from a judgment award. Any deduction without one is irregular.
• Sheriff’s fees are fixed by Rule 141 — 4% on the first P4,000.00 and 2% on the excess — and are not negotiable.
• Costs, including sheriff’s fees, are generally charged to the losing party, not the winner, unless the court orders otherwise.
• Excessive demands expose sheriffs to administrative liability, including suspension or dismissal.
• Litigants who suspect overcharging should document the demand, seek legal advice, and consider filing a complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator.

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